A Two-Tiered AFL Competition

[Nasher 33,068]

We simply have the haves and have not and about 50% of season's matches are meaningless dead rubbers.

They are, but under the current model the broadcasters don't know which ones would be the dead rubbers until the season's about half way through, so they've got to buy the lot, warts and all.

Under the tiered system they'll know in advance which 50% of the games are dead rubbers and the TV deals will be weighted appropriately. Not to mention that some of the biggest drawing games, like Essendon vs Collingwood for example, would disappear out of existence some years. No showdowns some years? The people of Adelaide wouldn't have a reason to get out of bed.

I see the tier system as being the ideal way to greatly diminish AFL revenue and obliterate interest in the game for supporters of half the sides.

[John Crow Batty 8,258]

A two tier system will only create perenial poverty row teams. A second division will only generate limited appeal for die hard fans mostly.

Better the two conference style system as suggested by others. 9 teams in each conference. Each team plays its own conference teams twice per season. And then play 5-6 other conference teams once on a rotational basis each season. Each conference has a final four system to determine the Grand finalists. Not sure how the AFL will like this as its stuffs up their current unfair premium draw system. But if they want to keep the competition healthy and ensure its long time survival they will have to bite the bullet instead of going for the short term profit maximisation option.

Edited August 6, 2011 by america de cali

[Range Rover 1,935]

Some good arguments. The US-style conference system might be the way to go in some format.

Something will have to be done because hope deposits are dwindling for many club supporters.

[pantaloons 2,019]

They are, but under the current model the broadcasters don't know which ones would be the dead rubbers until the season's about half way through, so they've got to buy the lot, warts and all.

Under the tiered system they'll know in advance which 50% of the games are dead rubbers and the TV deals will be weighted appropriately. Not to mention that some of the biggest drawing games, like Essendon vs Collingwood for example, would disappear out of existence some years. No showdowns some years? The people of Adelaide wouldn't have a reason to get out of bed.

I see the tier system as being the ideal way to greatly diminish AFL revenue and obliterate interest in the game for supporters of half the sides.

Excellent post.

The EPL system of relegation is the last one you want to be looking at to see where the AFL should head. Every year you have about 3 or 4 ultra-rich clubs who are the genuine title hopes, 20 clubs who can theoretically win the title, out of what - a hundred clubs?! It's pretty much the death of 80% of their clubs. But that's ok because kids in Singapore will buy Manchester United jerseys from the official club shop there. Laughable.

This is a massive overreaction to a few on-field poundings. People have short memories. In the 80s and early 90s, these sort of beatings were par for the course, and the competition didn't implode. In fact, we've seen 11 different clubs win premierships since 1995. Every so often there are issues the media focuses on and can't let go of. With so many journalists devoted to AFL, there has to be something to cover. In the mid 2000s, we were told that Victorian clubs would never win another premiership.

If you want to look at solutions for issues of thrashings in dead rubbers at the end of seasons (which I don't - I'm perfectly happy with where we're at), then you could start with the percentage system to determine tiebreakers. I like the % system and wouldn't want it changed, but if you wanted to decrease the incentive for clubs to pound the absolute snot out of each other, then make the tiebreakers based on other factors, like head to head results or wins away from home etc etc.

What we have now in this year's competition as far as I see it is five teams in their premiership window going hell for leather (Coll, Geel, Haw, Carl, and I include StK here), surprise packet WC, some mediocre teams going nowhere (Syd, Freo, WB, and the rest of the comp who know they are not in premiership mode and are developing accordingly. There is always the hope of springing up the ladder a la West Coast this year. Relegating teams only reduces them to playing in an amateur competition, a move that would alienate supporters and see the end of a number of clubs. I always said I would be an MFC member until the club merged or was kicked out of the comp, and I see relegation as being kicked out the comp and would completely lose interest, as would most.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Excellent post.

The EPL system of relegation is the last one you want to be looking at to see where the AFL should head. Every year you have about 3 or 4 ultra-rich clubs who are the genuine title hopes, 20 clubs who can theoretically win the title, out of what - a hundred clubs?! It's pretty much the death of 80% of their clubs. But that's ok because kids in Singapore will buy Manchester United jerseys from the official club shop there. Laughable.

This is a massive overreaction to a few on-field poundings. People have short memories. In the 80s and early 90s, these sort of beatings were par for the course, and the competition didn't implode. In fact, we've seen 11 different clubs win premierships since 1995. Every so often there are issues the media focuses on and can't let go of. With so many journalists devoted to AFL, there has to be something to cover. In the mid 2000s, we were told that Victorian clubs would never win another premiership.

If you want to look at solutions for issues of thrashings in dead rubbers at the end of seasons (which I don't - I'm perfectly happy with where we're at), then you could start with the percentage system to determine tiebreakers. I like the % system and wouldn't want it changed, but if you wanted to decrease the incentive for clubs to pound the absolute snot out of each other, then make the tiebreakers based on other factors, like head to head results or wins away from home etc etc.

What we have now in this year's competition as far as I see it is five teams in their premiership window going hell for leather (Coll, Geel, Haw, Carl, and I include StK here), surprise packet WC, some mediocre teams going nowhere (Syd, Freo, WB, and the rest of the comp who know they are not in premiership mode and are developing accordingly. There is always the hope of springing up the ladder a la West Coast this year. Relegating teams only reduces them to playing in an amateur competition, a move that would alienate supporters and see the end of a number of clubs. I always said I would be an MFC member until the club merged or was kicked out of the comp, and I see relegation as being kicked out the comp and would completely lose interest, as would most.

I'll tell you the the way to alienate supporters. Bring in two soulless McFranchises that leapfrog the battling traditional clubs in their fourth or fifth years and challenge for flags before we have any hope of doing so.

You can say that's our lot and we should have done better etc but the fact is that, after 50 years in the wilderness, that would majorly suck and I wonder how many Dees, Tiges and Dogs fans would just say 'enough's enough' at that point and make the final call that it's not worth the emotional investment.

Hell I might go down and watch my local ammos side each weekend instead, who at least go into each 10-team comp season with fresh hope and dreams of a flag.

Maybe that's what the AFL privately want. Two or three Vic clubs to fall by the wayside over the next decade or two.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Range Rover

[Nasher 33,068]

Maybe that's what the AFL privately want. Two or three Vic clubs to fall by the wayside over the next decade or two.

The AFL don't want anything that will compromise their revenue (and therefore growth by implication) stream - that's why clubs that are ailing still exist. People crap on about clubs on "handouts" and being on "life support" from the AFL, but when you look at the financial statements, in the current model every single club is highly dependent on revenue from the AFL. If they wanted a club to cease existing, they could snuff it out in the blink of an eye - and if it was what they wanted it could just as easily be Collingwood or Essendon as it could be Melbourne, Footscray or North Melbourne due to the way the finances are controlled by HQ.

[Range Rover 1,935]

COLLINGWOOD coach Mick Malthouse says people will turn off football if games continue to be one-sided.

[John Crow Batty 8,258]

If one cares to take note, in the big European leagues with a relegation system it is still the wealthiest half dozen clubs that are nearly always at the top. Middle of the road clubs are always battling relegation or false hopes and well perfoming battlers get promoted and relegated on a cyclic basis. The only way a small club usually progresses is when there is a wealthy benefactor willing to do his dough. But when the money stops these clubs decline very fast.

Then there is the issue of commercial sponsorshiop. The perenial top tier teams are always going to attract the lions share of sponsorship. Poor clubs are forced to trade their best players to generate enough cash. This class system entrenches established wealth and success and IMO would be disaster for clubs like ours.

Edited August 7, 2011 by america de cali

[titan_uranus 22,443]

Excellent post.

The EPL system of relegation is the last one you want to be looking at to see where the AFL should head. Every year you have about 3 or 4 ultra-rich clubs who are the genuine title hopes, 20 clubs who can theoretically win the title, out of what - a hundred clubs?! It's pretty much the death of 80% of their clubs. But that's ok because kids in Singapore will buy Manchester United jerseys from the official club shop there. Laughable.

This is a massive overreaction to a few on-field poundings. People have short memories. In the 80s and early 90s, these sort of beatings were par for the course, and the competition didn't implode. In fact, we've seen 11 different clubs win premierships since 1995. Every so often there are issues the media focuses on and can't let go of. With so many journalists devoted to AFL, there has to be something to cover. In the mid 2000s, we were told that Victorian clubs would never win another premiership.

If you want to look at solutions for issues of thrashings in dead rubbers at the end of seasons (which I don't - I'm perfectly happy with where we're at), then you could start with the percentage system to determine tiebreakers. I like the % system and wouldn't want it changed, but if you wanted to decrease the incentive for clubs to pound the absolute snot out of each other, then make the tiebreakers based on other factors, like head to head results or wins away from home etc etc.

What we have now in this year's competition as far as I see it is five teams in their premiership window going hell for leather (Coll, Geel, Haw, Carl, and I include StK here), surprise packet WC, some mediocre teams going nowhere (Syd, Freo, WB, and the rest of the comp who know they are not in premiership mode and are developing accordingly. There is always the hope of springing up the ladder a la West Coast this year. Relegating teams only reduces them to playing in an amateur competition, a move that would alienate supporters and see the end of a number of clubs. I always said I would be an MFC member until the club merged or was kicked out of the comp, and I see relegation as being kicked out the comp and would completely lose interest, as would most.

Well said.

Maybe it's possible that as the year goes on, with the sub rule making players play more game time than before, younger sides are fatiguing earlier than usual.

The thrashings are being handed out to Melbourne, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide, Richmond and North Melbourne (I'm just thinking about the recent 100+ losses). What do they have in common? Young, physically underdeveloped lists.

And where are the thrashings coming from? Collingwood, Geelong and Carlton (those 100+ wins). Starting to see a trend here?

I'll tell you the the way to alienate supporters. Bring in two soulless McFranchises that leapfrog the battling traditional clubs in their fourth or fifth years and challenge for flags before we have any hope of doing so.

You can say that's our lot and we should have done better etc but the fact is that, after 50 years in the wilderness, that would majorly suck and I wonder how many Dees, Tiges and Dogs fans would just say 'enough's enough' at that point and make the final call that it's not worth the emotional investment.

Hell I might go down and watch my local ammos side each weekend instead, who at least go into each 10-team comp season with fresh hope and dreams of a flag.

Maybe that's what the AFL privately want. Two or three Vic clubs to fall by the wayside over the next decade or two.

You, like Port Adelaide, are becoming increasingly irrelevant with posts like this.

[caddypgt 30]

We bring in a salary cap to curb the advantage of richer clubs being able to attract better players who demand better pay.

There is a large disparity in football department and developmental spending.

The next logical step would be to cap football department spending in a similar way.

This is how you can maintain the current league structure and truly obtain the cyclical success model the AFL wants. Even and fair.

[Guest hangon007]

Something will have to be done because hope deposits are dwindling for many club supporters.

heheheheh ... & its only going to get worse. Especially the younger your list is. B)

[Guest hangon007]

There is a large disparity in football department and developmental spending.

The next logical step would be to cap football department spending in a similar way.

This is how you can maintain the current league structure and truly obtain the cyclical success model the AFL wants. Even and fair.

Logic says if you cant raise the money for your OWN football department to be competitive you shouldn't be here in the AFL.

But I dont disagree with the idea.

Edited August 7, 2011 by hangon007

[old dee 22,925]

AFL sides in the second tier will die....how can this be a good idea?

Agree WYL the day the Dees are in the second tier is the day I stop going.

we might as well join the VAFA

[Guest hangon007]

Well said.

Maybe it's possible that as the year goes on, with the sub rule making players play more game time than before, younger sides are fatiguing earlier than usual.

The thrashings are being handed out to Melbourne, Gold Coast, Port Adelaide, Richmond and North Melbourne (I'm just thinking about the recent 100+ losses). What do they have in common? Young, physically underdeveloped lists.

And where are the thrashings coming from? Collingwood, Geelong and Carlton (those 100+ wins). Starting to see a trend here?

Really good point Mick Malthouse made this point on the radio today.

[old dee 22,925]

COLLINGWOOD coach Mick Malthouse says people will turn off football if games continue to be one-sided.

He is 100% correct and it will be worse next year.

I was having dinner with 2 keen Pie members last night.

I asked why the game was not on.

Answer "it will be a hiding not much interest

we are gearing up for next Friday night"

I asked if the game was in Melbourne would you have gone?

Probably not, cold out tonight and would rather have a few reds with dinner here".

Says it all for me

[caddypgt 30]

Logic says if you cant raise the money for your OWN football department to be competitive you shouldn't be here in the AFL.

But I dont disagree with the idea.

Some clubs receive assistance from the AFL, generally not enough to make a huge dent in the football department spending.

Everyone seems to be spending at least 13 mil per annum; Collingwood spends in the region of 20.

Cap it like salaries, and set a minimum spend of 92.5%.

That is the next step in equalisation. AFL are vested in the survival of all clubs to ensure they can provide for a full 18 sides for the broadcast rights. Get onto this before football dept spending renders clubs unable to compete. This will truly get the cyclical success model going.

[tonatopia 278]

Tasmania must be included

N.T will get a side, 75% of the players will be indigenous,

Perth is being looked at as a 3rd team in W.A.

Cairns and Canberra are worth considering.

Also, with a 2 tier league, teams based out of ballarat, bendigo, albury and mildura may be financially strong enough to buy a license.

Personally, supporting a developing club, I would rather watch us win a division 2 premiership than get smashed week in week out.

I think it would be exciting.

Edited August 7, 2011 by tonatopia