Conference System

[MadAsHell 4,215]

The AFL are now considering setting up a conference system once GWS the 18th team comes into the competition.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/96547/default.aspx

What's everyone's thoughts?

I'm not a big fan but if they were to do one I'd say the three conferences and then maybe the top 2 from each conference make up a finals series?

Could be something like

Southern Conference:

Carlton

Collingwood

Hawthorn

Melbourne

Richmond

St. Kilda

South Western Conference:

Adelaide

Essendon

Geelong

North Melbourne

Port Adelaide

Western Bulldogs

Greater Australian Conference:

Brisbane

Fremantle

Gold Coast

Greater Western Sydney

Sydney

West Coast

What do we all think?

[Guest Redleg_24]

The AFL are now considering setting up a conference system once GWS the 18th team comes into the competition.

http://www.afl.com.a...47/default.aspx

What's everyone's thoughts?

I'm not a big fan but if they were to do one I'd say the three conferences and then maybe the top 2 from each conference make up a finals series?

Could be something like

Southern Conference:

Carlton

Collingwood

Hawthorn

Melbourne

Richmond

St. Kilda

South Western Conference:

Adelaide

Essendon

Geelong

North Melbourne

Port Adelaide

Western Bulldogs

Greater Australian Conference:

Brisbane

Fremantle

Gold Coast

Greater Western Sydney

Sydney

West Coast

What do we all think?

Will Not Happen !!!

[MadAsHell 4,215]

Will Not Happen !!!

I hope your right. I'd be more then happy keeping the same system and probably expanding the finals series to a top 10.

[Inner Demon 1]

I'm yet to hear a good argument against the idea of breaking up into 3 conferences after 17 rounds where the Top 6 play off to make Top 4 and the Middle 6 play off for the last 2 finals spots.

It's a terrific idea.

[45HG 1,559]

Please God no

[H_T 3,049]

I'm yet to hear a good argument against the idea of breaking up into 3 conferences after 17 rounds where the Top 6 play off to make Top 4 and the Middle 6 play off for the last 2 finals spots.

It's a terrific idea.

Huh ?

I'd like to hear more before even considering an argument. What about the bottom 6 ?

Do they just drop off into the abyss ? B)

[Inner Demon 1]

Please God no

Why not?? Don't you want a solution to the inequitable draw issue???

I understand the 'leave the game alone' argument, but we're not talking about rule changes with frustrating, inconsistent interpretations. We're talking about finally removing the biggest yearly issue in teams getting a perceived advantage over others in the fixture.

[ox_5 163]

Why not?? Don't you want a solution to the inequitable draw issue???

I understand the 'leave the game alone' argument, but we're not talking about rule changes with frustrating, inconsistent interpretations. We're talking about finally removing the biggest yearly issue in teams getting a perceived advantage over others in the fixture.

Wouldnt creating conferences be just as inequitable? Teams get lucky and get a perceived 'weaker' group, whilst some teams may be shafted with the strongest teams in the comp in their group.

It will not be solved. The only way to do so is for every team to play twice, home and away. There will always be inequities in our draw. Conferences will not work to fix that.

[The Great One 99 125]

It would also open up another can of crap regarding draft picks.

Eg. Team finished bottom of their group with lowest percentage but were playing against stronger opposition etc.

It would become very complicated. It is hurting my brain thinking about it.

[Red Sox 2]

I'm not sure that a conference system entirely takes out the inequity or fairness of a draw does it? It might within one's own conference but not through the entire roster of teams.

It's interesting and I would love to reserve judgment and think about it some more. I understand the conference system in American sports for the most part, except for how they draw fixtures against teams in other conferences.

My preference at this stage would be to have a Tasmanian team included and then one other team,possibly NT or a 3rd team in SA/WA perhaps - not really thought about the where from other than a Tassie team being included. But I would like to see 20 teams in the competition.

This way everyone would play each other once, 19 games per year & removing the split round/bye's due to it being 3 weeks shorter. The only one glaring inequity would be the home/away factor, but this could see a draw/fixture done over 2 years - ie 2011 - Melbourne V Geelong @ MCG, WCE V Melbourne @ Subiaco, 2012 - Geelong V Melbourne @ Skilled, Melbourne V WCE @ MCG.

IMO this all balances nicely?

[Inner Demon 1]

Huh ?

I'd like to hear more before even considering an argument. What about the bottom 6 ?

Do they just drop off into the abyss ? B)

Don't they already??

Teams that low on the ladder that late in the season give up anyway. They just wind up manipulating the makeup of the finals by lying down and getting flogged because they're blooding kids and sending veterans off for surgery and so forth. Let them do it without disrupting the integrity of the finals series. No longer will teams on the edge of finals get lucky by running into poor teams at the end of the year while another contender gets knocked out because they ran into the best teams at the same time.

The bottom 6 can play off for draft pecking order or maybe some kind of lottery system.

[Inner Demon 1]

Wouldnt creating conferences be just as inequitable? Teams get lucky and get a perceived 'weaker' group, whilst some teams may be shafted with the strongest teams in the comp in their group.

It will not be solved. The only way to do so is for every team to play twice, home and away. There will always be inequities in our draw. Conferences will not work to fix that.

I'm not advocating the conference options. I'm talking about every team playing each other once for the first 17 rounds then the league splitting into 3 divisions for 1-6, 7-12 & 13-18. 1-6 play to determine the Top 4, 7-12 play for the last two spots in the finals, 13-18 can play off for draft lottery balls.

Obviously the dead games in the 13-18 are an issue, but it's only 5 games and I would contend that those teams have usually given up anyway by that late stage of the season and are just planning for future and disrupting the integrity of the finals composition.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

I think the only way we'll ever get back to ever being an even competition is if we ever get to a 24 team competition and have 2 confrences of 12 teams. You'd play all the teams in your conference twice and each conference would have a top 8. You play an elimination finals series till you have 2 conference champs and then the grand final amongst the two conference champions.

This would require having 6 more teams enter the comp such as Hobart, Launceston, Canberra, Darwin, Cairns & Ballarat or maybe Newcastle?

Obviously this would be 20 years off!

Edited June 18, 2010 by Tall Defence

[H_T 3,049]

I'm not advocating the conference options. I'm talking about every team playing each other once for the first 17 rounds then the league splitting into 3 divisions for 1-6, 7-12 & 13-18. 1-6 play to determine the Top 4, 7-12 play for the last two spots in the finals, 13-18 can play off for draft lottery balls.

Obviously the dead games in the 13-18 are an issue, but it's only 5 games and I would contend that those teams have usually given up anyway by that late stage of the season and are just planning for future and disrupting the integrity of the finals composition.

Ok, now that you have broken it down further in detail, I get the picture. Looking at the greater picture it seems a reasonable concept or perhaps the best alternative to accomodate 18 teams. It still means there is effectively 22 rounds (with the additional 5 rounds) after round 17. So you get a tick for not lengthening the season.

My only gripe (I can't see how it could be solved tbh), as I'm sure it is for alot of people, is with the first 17 rounds, which ever way you look at it, it will still be seen as a "fixture" (with emphasis on the "fix")...ie. who gets the home games and who doesn't ? ie. Who gets to play GWS in Melbourne and who has to play them in Western Sydney... .

But I suppose this kind of thing has been happening for sometime anyway. Maybe the amount of Collingwoods games at the G will be reduced....I suppose that would be a positive.

[volders 22]

Huh ?

I'd like to hear more before even considering an argument. What about the bottom 6 ?

Do they just drop off into the abyss ? B)

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=720419

not a bad idea, better than conference anyway imo.

[Demonised 1,355]

Conference? Conference?! Please, no, don't call them conferences. Sections, segments, partitions, categories, compartments whatever. Can we, for once, do something original instead of aping some overseas convention.

[Inner Demon 1]

Ok, now that you have broken it down further in detail, I get the picture. Looking at the greater picture it seems a reasonable concept or perhaps the best alternative to accomodate 18 teams. It still means there is effectively 22 rounds (with the additional 5 rounds) after round 17. So you get a tick for not lengthening the season.

My only gripe (I can't see how it could be solved tbh), as I'm sure it is for alot of people, is with the first 17 rounds, which ever way you look at it, it will still be seen as a "fixture" (with emphasis on the "fix")...ie. who gets the home games and who doesn't ? ie. Who gets to play GWS in Melbourne and who has to play them in Western Sydney... .

But I suppose this kind of thing has been happening for sometime anyway. Maybe the amount of Collingwoods games at the G will be reduced....I suppose that would be a positive.

Home game issue fixed easily. Rotates year to year. We play GWS in Melb in 2012 and we play them in Sydney in 2013. And so on.

For the last 5 rounds it's randomly drawn, obviously 3 home and 3 away for each team.

[H_T 3,049]

Home game issue fixed easily. Rotates year to year. We play GWS in Melb in 2012 and we play them in Sydney in 2013. And so on.

For the last 5 rounds it's randomly drawn, obviously 3 home and 3 away for each team.

Can I suggest this alternative to the three pools or conferences: -

Dividing the 18 clubs into three pools - play all teams in the same pool twice (10 games) and the teams in the other two pool once (12 games). After the end of the home-and-away season either two or four teams from each conference qualify for the finals.

This way you get 22 rounds in, still. If it is decided it is a 12 team finals series, that means a top four in each pool will go through.

[Red Sox 2]

I dislike the increase of teams within a finals series....right now IMO 7th/8th position are only there for the extra game/s for the AFL revenue. Yes I understand the marketing/revenue reasons, much the same as US sports going from 3 game finals series to 5 to now 7....its all about revenue so I tell myself look at the big picture...ok, but i still don't like any of it.

I think it dilutes the quality somewhat. But it wont change and it WILL increase so I will stay focused on the alternatives!

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 389]

I do like the sound of the top, middkle and bottom 6 playing off in the last 5 rounds in theory, but the idea of 5 dead rubber games concerns me especially in terms of crown attendances. It also means that injuries in the start of the year to key players would mean goodbye season for some teams and gives no chance of building late season momentum. To me it would also mean that the last 5 rounds would pretty much be like a final series anyway, which is goo in some regards, but puts in to question the purpose of playing beyond 17 rounds...

[jnrmac 20,180]

Better off having a comp where each team plays each other once. The following year the home ground alternates.

[Ryan Dee 140]

It would also open up another can of crap regarding draft picks.

Eg. Team finished bottom of their group with lowest percentage but were playing against stronger opposition etc.

It would become very complicated. It is hurting my brain thinking about it.

Playing against stronger opposition?

All teams would play each other just like now, everything would be the same except the ladder is sorted into 3.

It works for the NBA and if we were to do the same i'm sure it would be fine. Change will happen like anything.

[Inner Demon 1]

I do like the sound of the top, middkle and bottom 6 playing off in the last 5 rounds in theory, but the idea of 5 dead rubber games concerns me especially in terms of crown attendances. It also means that injuries in the start of the year to key players would mean goodbye season for some teams and gives no chance of building late season momentum. To me it would also mean that the last 5 rounds would pretty much be like a final series anyway, which is goo in some regards, but puts in to question the purpose of playing beyond 17 rounds...

I would suggest that if a couple of injuries was enough to knock a team out of the Top 12, they weren't a premiership contender to begin with.

The crowd thing is somewhat of an issue, but really, are the teams out of the race with 5 weeks to go pulling good crowds as it is???

Playing beyond the 17 to a full 22 is a commercial situation. This might not be 100% ideal, but this is a reality of what keeps our competition going. The league needs that money.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Don't be surprised to see a 24 round season with a top 8 or 9 with the fixturing staying much the same way it is now.

The AFL will not settle for anything else unless it is proven to be better (fairness included) that won't affect the commercial dollar.

Remember WA and SA derbys, 2 matches between Pies / Bomb, Carl / Pies, Bomb / Carl and other big games are massive windfalls for not only the AFL but the clubs involved too. Clubs will not want to run the risk of losing out financially.

The conference system means that some of these twice a season games will be lost.

Splitting the comp into 3 divisions after 17 rounds also rules out some of these double up matches. (Even when blues where crap they still had massive crowds against traditional rivals).

It is the almighty Dollar that drives this competition. Big games, TV rights, crowd attendance etc.

The AFL are simply stroking the ego of the public to make them feel as if they have a say- when have the AFL ever listened to the public on how to run or govern the game. They don't and won't.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=720419not a bad idea, better than conference anyway imo.

Further to the last, this alternative looks good on first glance:

With 18 teams in the league, each team plays each other once in the first 17 rounds. At the conclusion of round 17, the bottom six sides are no longer in premiership contention. The top 12 are divided into two evenly matched groups of 6 (this could be 1,4,6,7,9,12 in group A, and 2,3,5,8,10,11 in group B), and in the remaining five rounds (I have called these the 'super rounds'), each team plays the other five teams within their respective group, with the final 8 playing off under the current system.

I have suggested a couple of extra measures that may create additional interest in the super rounds. Firstly, winning a game in the 'super rounds' is worth 6 points rather than 4 (points are carried over from the first 17 rounds). Secondly, the top 8 is determined by the top 4 within groups A and B, with the top 4 determined by the top 2 within each group. Thus, at the conclusion of the super rounds, the qualifying finals will be A1 v B2, B1 v A2, and elimination finals A3 v B4, B3 v A4.

Of course, supporters of the bottom six sides would mostly prefer to see their teams playing the full 22 rounds. An idea here is that after round 17, the bottom six form group C and play each other over the last five rounds (points are not carried over); at the conclusion of the five rounds, the top 2 of the bottom six play off (alongside week 1 of the finals), with the winner earning a priority draft pick (rather than tanking to receive one). After the first draft pick, the ladder at round 17 determines the order of the national draft (i.e. the bottom team at round 17 receives pick 2, second bottom pick 3 and so on). This at least ensures that each of the bottom sides has something to play for (other than pride).

There are some questions that arise under this system, which I have tried to consider and come up with a solution. For example, which team plays a home game in the super rounds? One possible solution is that the home team in a super round game was the away team when the teams met during rounds 1-17; e.g. if St Kilda played Fremantle in Melbourne in round 10, then if they play each other in the super rounds, they would then play at Subiaco.

(Care of Chiz on Big Footy).

However,

If any of the big 4 teams (Carl/Coll/Ess/Rich) or WA or SA teams are in the bottom 6 my previous argument about being unable to fixture a second derby style match remains (and the financial implications for clubs).

After 17 rounds, the bottom few teams will be there for a reason- they are crap. More than likely the theory above will see teams in positions 13 and 14 ending up with a priority draft pick before the crap teams below them get a selection- the cries of inequitable will be screamed from the heavens when Hawthorn or someone like that gets the first pick ahead of Richmond.....

Finally, using Melbourne as an example. They play West Coast, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane away during the season. They finish say 7th. The conference's are divided up however only Brisbane is in their conference for the final 5 rounds, so they only get a return game in Melbourne against them. Meanwhile, also in their conference is Freo, Port and GC who also finished above Melbourne. These teams by virtue of being higher on the ladder get home ground advantage and therefore Melbourne winds up playing 7 interstate games during the year. This screams of inequity. It is the same on the flip side for interstate teams who have to travel to Melbourne repeatedly.

It all harks back to my previous post / argument that for all the discussion and conjecture (and press) that will occur.......there will be bugger all changes except for a couple of extra rounds and maybe one or two more finals spots up for grabs.