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.

Yeah fair points there, money is alsays going to be an issue. But I guees in terms of attendence when a team that isn't in contention is playing against someone who is currently, I woul assume those support of the team in contention would still be turning up whereas where both team are out of contention is would seem to be somewhat of a disincentive, but at the same time it might encourage teams in teh bottom 6 to to a lot of experimentation in those rounds which might generate some interest

I'm all for a conference system. Maybe not 3 tier, but definitely 2 tier. I think the current system is actually quite flawed in that it is just far too difficult to make an even draw right across the board. Take a look at the NBA. Two conference - west and east. Each team plays every team in their conference 3 or 4 times (depending on location. So Chicago play Milwaukee 4 times before they are close and in the same division), and they play each team in the other conference twice.

My idea:

Conference 1

North

Carlton

Collingwood

St. Kilda

Hawthorn

Sydney

West Sydney

Gold Coast

Brisbane

Conference 2

Richmond

Melbourne

Essendon

Bulldogs

Geelong

Adelaide

Port

Freo

West Coast

Each team plays their conference counterparts twice, and they play each team in the other conference once. No more than two games in a row at home, and no more than two games in a row away (away game. I don't mean interstate).

Season is 24 rounds long, with 1 or 2 breaks, either 1 half-way, or 1 a quarter of the way, and another 3/4.

Finals leave it as final 8. Or make it Final 10 with the finals an extra week.

I know a lot of traditionalist/old people are against a change, but there's no way we can keep it the way it is considering the travel involved and the complex finals system (compared to other major leagues for example, which are knock out, with no second chances).

Edited June 18, 201015 yr by calabreseboy

If it aint broke don't fix it. I would like to see a Tasmanian, Darwin & Canberra side before all this.

I'm all for a conference system. Maybe not 3 tier, but definitely 2 tier. I think the current system is actually quite flawed in that it is just far too difficult to make an even draw right across the board. Take a look at the NBA. Two conference - west and east. Each team plays every team in their conference 3 or 4 times (depending on location. So Chicago play Milwaukee 4 times before they are close and in the same division), and they play each team in the other conference twice.

My idea:

Conference 1

North

Carlton

Collingwood

St. Kilda

Hawthorn

Sydney

West Sydney

Gold Coast

Brisbane

Conference 2

Richmond

Melbourne

Essendon

Bulldogs

Geelong

Adelaide

Port

Freo

West Coast

Each team plays their conference counterparts twice, and they play each team in the other conference once. No more than two games in a row at home, and no more than two games in a row away (away game. I don't mean interstate).

Season is 24 rounds long, with 1 or 2 breaks, either 1 half-way, or 1 a quarter of the way, and another 3/4.

Finals leave it as final 8. Or make it Final 10 with the finals an extra week.

I know a lot of traditionalist/old people are against a change, but there's no way we can keep it the way it is considering the travel involved and the complex finals system (compared to other major leagues for example, which are knock out, with no second chances).

That's not a bad system. The problem is with the inability to then have two games between say Coll / Ess, Coll / Tiges etc- possibly solved by fixturing 2 years at a time......... however those games are also still big TV money games and they will lose out there only having one a season.

The biggest question is then how the conference's are divided. How is it worked out. One may argue with the above example that although you have split up the current top 4 across the conferences, in all liklihood (and being an optimist here) in say 3-4 years time the top 4 teams in the comp given the recent drafts etc will be Melb, Rich, Freo, North and poss GC17 and GWS. That would then create lop sided conferences and make the finals positions flawed.

Therefore as a counter do you then rank the top 5 in each conference and factor in who they have beaten and their finishing position to then work out a formula for ranking the top 10 teams and then split the finals up that way? Again not desirable given example above.

Just playing devils advocate here....

Look...I hate this, don't like it at all but I guess will come to enjoy whatever format we are given. One thing I will say is that AFL really do for the most part, a great job at moving this competition and great game forward.

If it were run as the NRL is we would all still be trekking to Windy Hill, Princes Park, Victoria Park *shudder*, we might even be wearing those shocking light blue numbers .....I did love the days in the outer at these grounds though!

Change is good so I embrace it.....as long as the Dees are lifting premierships I don't care what conference we come out of.

One question - if we bring in conferences or the like as in the USA, does this mean teams will be crowned Conference Champions/Premiers and then if lucky enough Premiers???

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.

I suspect that is what will happen.

Can I suggest this. We forgo the entry of GC17 and GWS, pull Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle & West Coast from the competition. Bring back Fitzroy and South Melbourne and have a 12 team VFL competition where everyone plays eachother twice over 22 rounds and we have a final 6.

Now that I'd like to see!

My idea...

Play 17 rounds, teams play each other only once. This enables a longer finals system of 5 or possibly 6 weeks, havent worked out the finals side though. The draw though actually happens over 2 years in that you play the team away this year and then at home next year. As everyone plays each other once, it allows for their showdowns, derbies each year as well as keeping the anzac, dreamtime, qb games every year.

With there being less games and a shorter season, a state of origin game could be played (as people still seem to want this) but I would play it around round 5-6, this way players shouldnt pull out as much with niggling injuries the way they had previously with the game being played later in the season and players then seeing it as a week off with finals in mind.

My ideal would be every team plays each other twice but we all know a 34 game regular season will never be played.

How about we keep it like it is - 22 games, except you only get to play five teams twice, preferably the bigger teams. For example, Melbourne play Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn and Essendon twice. Then the top 8 play finals, which makes it a little harder to get in. Should make teams fight more for it.

How about we keep it like it is - 22 games, except you only get to play five teams twice, preferably the bigger teams. For example, Melbourne play Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn and Essendon twice. Then the top 8 play finals, which makes it a little harder to get in. Should make teams fight more for it.

I'd be happy with that, have Melbourne play Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn & Richmond twice and all other teams once. I'd also be happy to keep final 8 or at most go to top 10. A top 12 which is being mentioned is far to much!

I've always preferred the conference system that guarantees you a fair draw (as long as they get the relative strengths of the conferences right).

Eight teams in the finals (top four in each conference) is enough.

I really believe the conference situation is a bad idea.

I live in Toronto and let me tell you something. I'm not a baseball fan, but have a look at how their "conference" and "division" idea works. Ox_5_demons is right, it is even more inequitable. The Toronto Blue Jays rarely make the post season because they're in the same division as the Yankees, Red Sox and Tampa Bay, probably the 3 strongest teams in baseball. And only the division winners are guaranteed a finals spot. The remaining places are filled by "wild cards", the highest ranking teams not including division winners. It stunts a lot of clubs growth as they have a slim chance of making finals.

Imagine if Melbourne were locked into a division that included Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Saints. Imagine how hard it would be to play these teams predominantly, while only playing other weaker teams less often? Bloody hard task for any club.

I say leave it as it is, the draw compensates for previous year ladder positions already. The only thing that should be worked on is the finals system once GWS arrives.

Lastly, take into account the length of the season for conference style games. How many games do they play in basketball? Baseball? We only play 22 so far...

I really believe the conference situation is a bad idea.

I live in Toronto and let me tell you something. I'm not a baseball fan, but have a look at how their "conference" and "division" idea works. Ox_5_demons is right, it is even more inequitable. The Toronto Blue Jays rarely make the post season because they're in the same division as the Yankees, Red Sox and Tampa Bay, probably the 3 strongest teams in baseball. And only the division winners are guaranteed a finals spot. The remaining places are filled by "wild cards", the highest ranking teams not including division winners. It stunts a lot of clubs growth as they have a slim chance of making finals.

Imagine if Melbourne were locked into a division that included Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Saints. Imagine how hard it would be to play these teams predominantly, while only playing other weaker teams less often? Bloody hard task for any club.

I say leave it as it is, the draw compensates for previous year ladder positions already. The only thing that should be worked on is the finals system once GWS arrives.

What is wrong with the current fixture, and how will a conference system remedy that?

There is nothing wrong with the system as it is. Especially the finals system.

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.

1) What is the criteria for splitting the AFL into conferences? Crowd-pulling ability? Hardly fair on the smaller clubs, but if you split them up there will be uproar if there aren't 2 Collingwood-Carlton/Essendon matches per year. Past year performance? Not always a good method (a la Hawthorn from 08-09, Adelaide from 09-10, Fremantle from 09-10, and us of course). Geographical location? There is not one geographical split that works. With there being 2 WA teams and 2 SA teams, other teams have to be added to their conference. If you use Brisbane/GC then you've got too many of those massive cross-country trips. If you use a Victorian team you get one or two Victorian teams making repeated trips West whilst the other Vic teams make 1 or 2.

All in all, a subjective and flawed method.

2) Where is the ultimate difference? If you play everyone in the other conference(s) at least once then it's exactly the same as it is now anyway except for the qualification for finals. If you have separate finals for each conference you are likely to eventually get a scenario where the best team that doesn't make the finals in one conference is better than a finals team in another conference. If you don't have separate finals series then the system is exactly the same, except for a flawed fixture, which makes it worse.

Cannot for the life of me see any merit to this at all.

Edited June 19, 201015 yr by titan_uranus

I don't see any merit in this idea at all. What I'd prefer is to not change the system but for one thing. Change the final eight to a final six, as 7th and 8th never go far anyway.

Edited June 19, 201015 yr by tasmanlvr

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 the best idea out of all put forward. Go for Tassie and NT.

Great Idea

Edited June 21, 201015 yr by gOLLy