And lets watch the sponsorship plummett for the second tier sides...Once you are down...you will not get up..EPL sides who rise to Premier league are always celler dwellers.

As Old55 pointed out, EPL doesn't have the salary cap or draft equalisation system that we have. Key difference.

My big problem with this is that it eliminates the possibility of a "surprise packet" team, like Melbourne of 1998. Just about every year there is one team that jumps from being an easy beat nobody to being right up there and mixing it with the best. Look at West Coast this year. The other issue I have with it is would there be any interest at all in the "championship" competition? The reason why it works so well in England is that they have a massive and crazy loyal fan base for clubs as low as Div 2, if the Kangas were in the second tier comp for anything more than 2 years they would die, without a doubt, and as good a work we have done rebuilding our club I reckon two years would undo all the hard work we've done to get back on track.

While i don't think it's the dumbest idea i've every heard, I just don't think it's right for AFL.

As Old55 pointed out, EPL doesn't have the salary cap or draft equalisation system that we have. Key difference.

With no sponsorship no money...Is the AFL going to bank roll an entire "B" competition??

this is an absolute no for 1 simple reason

imagine going into a season where you know you CANNOT win the flag - no matter how well you play.

uhhh no.

Every league has a problem with irrelevant games.

In the EPL it is games between middling sides.

In the US it is between non-big market sides.

Deal with it.

I don't like the idea of a WCE not being able to push the top 6 because they had a bad run with injuries the year before and are in a different [Censored] league...

This is the most ill-considered and hare-brained idea of all time.

Do you think Melbourne would be in the top half or bottom half?

Do you think revenue would flow to the top or bottom half?

We already have a two tiered competition. The clubs that access a clean stadium and those that don't. West Coast and Collingwood spend $300k A WEEK more than Melbourne on their football departments.

Geelong make $600k from 20,000 at Skilled stadium. We lose $25k from 20,000 at teh MCG. Where is the fairmess in that???

We don't want the EPL. As a competition it sucks. With 50m people in the UK there are still enormous disparities between the top 6 teams and the next 6 teams. What would happen here with 20m people (and roughly 50% AFL followers of some description)

Bin this idea immediately. It's insane.

All the posts making comparisons to the NFL and EPL are ridiculous, paranoid reactions. The EPL is the most illogical comparison, for one simple fact.....it has no salary cap and no draft, therefore NO possibility of fairness.... NIL. It is a fantastically dull competition for that reason, and bears no philosophical comparison to the AFL. It's only attraction is that you get the best players across about 6 clubs, which arguably creates an elite 'representative' standard. But it is just woeful for supporters outside the main 6. It's a classic monopoly.

Brendan Schwab's idea is inspired. He has managed to created a situation where every team still plays every other, keeps the salary cap and draft (of which supporters of the AFL should be enormously proud when compared to other sporting competitions worldwide), and rewards consistent on field performance.

The real attraction, which is stated in the article, is that it brings relevance to pretty much EVERY game, and that means relevance for the future. We do not have that in the AFL now. The latter third of the season for up to 6 clubs, currently becomes an exercise in playing out the season, where cynically jockeying for draft picks becomes a soul-destroying exercise.

One of it's clear attractions for me is that it does away with the ham-fisted fixture massaging that season to season gives some clubs an easier/more difficult run than others. Arguably, we have an easy run this year, but I can admit it is unfair. The idea that this evens out over several seasons, is nonsensical for the very reason that teams rise and fall over this same period. Schwab's idea is much fairer from the fixturing perspective.

Change will come to the AFL, and with expansion, there is nothing surer than that the competition WILL split. Schwab's method as to how to do this, seems elegant and fair to me.

Have a bad run with injuries and you can't win the flag that year, or the next year...

Anyone see the problems?

I dont believe that 18 teams is too many for one league anyway:

ELP: 20 teams

Championship: 24 teams

Spanish Premier: 20 teams

Italian Serie A: 20 teams

NBA: 15 teams in each conference

NFL: 16 teams in each conference

Just make the season longer... more foory!! Hell YEAH!!!

Have a bad run with injuries and you can't win the flag that year, or the next year...

Anyone see the problems?

Football is no longer a year to year plan, or even a 2 year to 2 year proposition, however much you want it to be!!!! We won't win the flag this year, and we won't next year. It has become a 3 to 5 year development cycle, and Schwab's plan recognises and accomodates this beautifully.

When was the last time a team went from 10th or lower to win the flag the next year?

Sponsorship, TV audiences and crowds will be up for 2nd tier matches because there will be massive interest in the outcomes.

There'll be 80K at the promotion-relegation play-offs between Melbourne clubs.

To restore fairness in fixturing I think I'd prefer the US conference system but with a twist.....

2 non-fixed conferences

25 games, same conf play twice, other conf play once etc

The twist is the conferences are decided each year based on ladder position (end of H&A)

e.g.

Conf A. pos 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17

Conf B. pos 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18

To restore fairness in fixturing I think I'd prefer the US conference system but with a twist.....

2 non-fixed conferences

25 games, same conf play twice, other conf play once etc

The twist is the conferences are decided each year based on ladder position (end of H&A)

e.g.

Conf A. pos 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17

Conf B. pos 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18

Explain how Schwab's proposal is unfair?

Terrible, terrible idea.

If your team was in the lower division with no chance to win a flag, it'd be a lot easier to take no interest.

Even if your team had been sitting about 10th the year before.

As rpfc said, if you have a bad run with injuries, you miss out on having a chance to win the flag the next year too.

Considering the brief premiership windows in our game, that could kill a club.

Do the doggies and saints deserve to be contending for a flag this year, while the eagles and bombers don't?

(not that they are contending just yet, but they are at opposite ends of the ladder to last year).

This would also heavily increase player movement, because players would lose patience and be desperate to get into a contender in the top division.

Decreasing loyalty in a game where we already bemoan a lack of it.

When was the last time a team went from 10th or lower to win the flag the next year?

Sponsorship, TV audiences and crowds will be up for 2nd tier matches because there will be massive interest in the outcomes.

There'll be 80K at the promotion-relegation play-offs between Melbourne clubs.

Well stated old55, as distinct from some of the other 'kneejerks' on here

Explain how Schwab's proposal is unfair?

I think Schwab's proposal is well presented and has some obvious benefits

The downside for me was that I think it will widen the gap between the rich/poor club through sponsorship and membership slippage.

New supporters to the game will gravitate even more to the Div 1 teams

Over time the bottom 4 clubs (except AFL 'franchises') will disappear

The AFL would not risk its 'franchises' being in a second division

The fixturing aspect of Schwab's proposal is equally fair and thats why I'd retain it under the 'conference' scheme, but its the defined inequality of the two divisions and the consequent effects on survivability/viability that I don't like

Explain how Schwab's proposal is unfair?

Half the comp can't win the [Censored] flag?!

Terrible, terrible idea.

If your team was in the lower division with no chance to win a flag, it'd be a lot easier to take no interest.

Even if your team had been sitting about 10th the year before.

As rpfc said, if you have a bad run with injuries, you miss out on having a chance to win the flag the next year too.

Considering the brief premiership windows in our game, that could kill a club.

Do the doggies and saints deserve to be contending for a flag this year, while the eagles and bombers don't?

(not that they are contending just yet, but they are at opposite ends of the ladder to last year).

This would also heavily increase player movement, because players would lose patience and be desperate to get into a contender in the top division.

Decreasing loyalty in a game where we already bemoan a lack of it.

I see absolutely no logic in any of this reply. The competition is no longer about year to year chances, maybe it never was, but certainly not now. Injuries would have to mount over a 2 or 3 year period to damage a success window, and injuries are always an intangible. The loyalty comment is just crazy. Why do we have a salary cap? Your suggestion of player movement means a player worth 500k will move to a tier 1 club, leaving a 500k salary hole for the tier 2 club. They will get a player to take that salary from where? Make sense!

Half the comp can't win the [Censored] flag?!

For that year! But as old55 put very well, when was the last time a team won the flag from 10th or lower the previous year? I'm asking for a real answer BTW.

For that year! But as old55 put very well, when was the last time a team won the flag from 10th or lower the previous year? I'm asking for a real answer BTW.

Probably Adelaide in '97.

But what about the Eagles this year?

They might give the top 6 a shake. But wouldn't get the opportunity in this proposed 'diagonal league.'

And having a bad run of injuries in 2015 means that you cannot win the flag that year and the next year.

That isn't fair, it isn't right, and it isn't going to happen.

I think Schwab's proposal is well presented and has some obvious benefits

The downside for me was that I think it will widen the gap between the rich/poor club through sponsorship and membership slippage.

New supporters to the game will gravitate even more to the Div 1 teams

Over time the bottom 4 clubs (except AFL 'franchises') will disappear

The AFL would not risk its 'franchises' being in a second division

The fixturing aspect of Schwab's proposal is equally fair and thats why I'd retain it under the 'conference' scheme, but its the defined inequality of the two divisions and the consequent effects on survivability/viability that I don't like

Your whole answer lives or dies on the idea that the AFL 'would not risk its franchises being in a second division'. You talk about this 'franchise' idea like Collingwood are Man U and North Melbourne are East Scunthorpe. Their is no such franchise domination in the AFL. Of MUCH more concern and value (monetary as well) to the AFL will be to maintain existing supporter bases, and grow the fidelity to each. This all smacks of an 'us and them' mentality, when clearly (and the AFL knows this)it is not in their interests to foster a monopolistic competition. It is for precisely this reason that the salary cap and draft were incorporated. Who devised them?....the big, bad AFL!

I see absolutely no logic in any of this reply. The competition is no longer about year to year chances, maybe it never was, but certainly not now. Injuries would have to mount over a 2 or 3 year period to damage a success window, and injuries are always an intangible. The loyalty comment is just crazy. Why do we have a salary cap? Your suggestion of player movement means a player worth 500k will move to a tier 1 club, leaving a 500k salary hole for the tier 2 club. They will get a player to take that salary from where? Make sense!

No longer about year to year chances?

Remember Hawthorn in 2008??

Injuries would destroy one year of a window.

That in turn would destroy a second year because you've been relegated.

How long do you think a premiership window stays open?

I'd be [censored] if my team was clearly good enough to contend for a flag, but was stuck in the lower division.

Imagine if you soundly beat the top team in the top division? It's not inconceivable.

The loyalty comment is not crazy, and it's short-sighted to think so.

With free agency coming in, there would be mass older-player movement as they scramble to get a flag while they still can.

The poorer clubs will become weaker.

Sure the cap is the same, but you'll end up with players getting money like Bruce did in his last contract at MFC.

The problem with Schwab's proposal is that as appealing at it might be in some sense of keeping late season games alive it fails the real world test of what happens to second tier teams when they fail to get even close to equal broadcast time with first tier teams and their sponsorships are discounted accordingly.

After a few years on reduced revenue even a club that is promoted will be uncompetitive for reasons of resources and football department/medical spending. Over time second tier teams would be entrenched as second rate.

I can deal with the luck of the fixture - for years the VFL ran an 18 game season with 12 sides.

Probably Adelaide in '97.

But what about the Eagles this year?

They might give the top 6 a shake. But wouldn't get the opportunity in this proposed 'diagonal league.'

And having a bad run of injuries in 2015 means that you cannot win the flag that year and the next year.

That isn't fair, it isn't right, and it isn't going to happen.

The Eagles will not win the flag this year, and you know this, so it doesn't support your argument. Having a bad run of injuries MAY discount you for 2016, but (again), how many teams have won from 10th or lower the previous year? Facts this time please.

This could be an out there proposition but its just an idea...

Firstly, you could actually just the game as it is, it's done pretty well to this point in time, do we really need to tinker with it too much?

Secondly, the problem with fairness is that every team doesn't play each other twice so the fixture is uneven. You can't extend out the season as players will complain about the toll on their bodies, injuries etc. What about though dropping the game length to say a flat 80 minutes, this shouldnt be so taxing on the body, aides in recovery. Could then play games with a shorter break between them, maybe 4-5 days, football gets played almost every night of the week. Borrowing the super 15 idea, can give bonus points for teams that say score over 100 in the game which then hopefully promotes more attacking games. You may still get the 'nothing' games towards the end of the year but I really think this almost cannot be avoided, but maybe look at the draft lottery system in the nba for an idea. Also if bonus points for the scoring, this could at least keep the footy interesting. With the game being longer, it at least isnt that long a time to watch some rubbish footy.

This of course is just an idea, kind of fleshing it out as I was typing it, but I dont like the relegation system as I do think it will kill the lessor clubs.

My third idea is to make the ball round, not let you touch it with your hands, bring in offside rules but this feels like its already been done before....

No longer about year to year chances?

Remember Hawthorn in 2008??

Injuries would destroy one year of a window.

That in turn would destroy a second year because you've been relegated.

How long do you think a premiership window stays open?

I'd be [censored] if my team was clearly good enough to contend for a flag, but was stuck in the lower division.

Imagine if you soundly beat the top team in the top division? It's not inconceivable.

The loyalty comment is not crazy, and it's short-sighted to think so.

With free agency coming in, there would be mass older-player movement as they scramble to get a flag while they still can.

The poorer clubs will become weaker.

Sure the cap is the same, but you'll end up with players getting money like Bruce did in his last contract at MFC.

Again, all based on a team winning the flag from 10th or lower the previous year. You're talking about if's and maybe's, when the 'chances' you speak of are as rare as hen's teeth. If older players move to tier one clubs, they leave big salary opportunities for younger guns who develop to put the team in a promotion/flag winning position at the tier 2 club, and the cycle goes round.

This is the point. The cycle of rise and fall will occur under Schwab's system almost exactly as it does now. There may be the loss of a 'freakish' premiership from a 10th or lower team the previous year, but that's a small price to pay for more a competition where there is much more at stake every week....bigger crowds, more gate revenue, more tv revenue.....it's a winner.