Anyway in the next few months i hope to have a copy available to anyone who's interested in trying it out and giving their feedback...

cool, can you post on demonland in a few months when it's up and running, cheers!

What's wrong with it being like US sports if it works?

I couldn't care less about looking like stealing an idea from the americans, if it makes the game better.

What kind of childish crap is that?

I just dont see why AFL would want to follow suit when they have a great competition allready. I've been to live NBA, NHL, and MLB games in the US and the atmosphere at feels sterile and contrived compared to an AFL match. Not saying they arent good sports but are you saying the AFL "doesnt work?".

From my experience the atmposhere at a US game during general play is nothing on AFL. Only when the big screens light up with "de-fence" and other chants does the crowd get involved, and they do it like brain washed robots calling back whatever the screen tells them too. Inbetween periods in NHL they show computer animated Zamboni races in an attempt to keep the punters amused. They clap along with the organ player inbetween innings.

I just dont see why AFL would want to follow suit when they have a great competition allready. I've been to live NBA, NHL, and MLB games in the US and the atmosphere at feels sterile and contrived compared to an AFL match. Not saying they arent good sports but are you saying the AFL "doesnt work?".

From my experience the atmposhere at a US game during general play is nothing on AFL. Only when the big screens light up with "de-fence" and other chants does the crowd get involved, and they do it like brain washed robots calling back whatever the screen tells them too. Inbetween periods in NHL they show computer animated Zamboni races in an attempt to keep the punters amused. They clap along with the organ player inbetween innings.

That's narrow-minded.

Surely no matter how good the game is, it still can be improved?

Pinching one aspect that works doesn't mean we have to adopt all the bad aspects.

That's narrow-minded.

Surely no matter how good the game is, it still can be improved?

Pinching one aspect that works doesn't mean we have to adopt all the bad aspects.

I'm growing tired of your attitude. You start every post with a backhanded insult before making matter of fact statements like your opinion carrys more weight than others.

I dont see any reason to go for a conference model in a competion with 18 sides. End of story

I'm growing tired of your attitude. You start every post with a backhanded insult before making matter of fact statements like your opinion carrys more weight than others.

I dont see any reason to go for a conference model in a competion with 18 sides. End of story

That may be, but surely you can understand that ANY competition can be improved?

Your first sentence would indicate otherwise.

I've thought about this myself at the beginning of the year. I'd group teams by geography though.

Group 1

Eagles

Dockers

Power

Crows

Bombers

Bulldogs

Group 2

Suns

Lions

Giants

Swans

Magpies

Kangaroos

Group 3

Demons

Cats

Hawks

Tigers

Blues

Saints

Play your group twice. Everyone else once. That's 22 games.

Will reduce travel expenses for clubs and would build some real strong rivalries.

Finals would include the top team from each group automatically, then the next 5 from the wins/losses.

These groups would not be up for alteration after any number of years. A the end of the day, if you're the best in your group, you play finals.

Edited May 3, 201213 yr by mrtwister

cool, can you post on demonland in a few months when it's up and running, cheers!

will do mate!

It certainly would be "fairer", which may make it unappealing to the AFL.

But, "conference", pleeeeaaase, lets not Americanize the game further - a conference is where you meet with like minded people to teach and learn - how about "sections", "divisions", "groups" etc

We'd be nicking the idea from the yanks, so it would only be fair. We can call it what we like, the design, and the permutations and interest it creates are the good part. I'm a huge follower of NFL, and also MLB a little, and I have to say, now that I know it well, I hate the AFL system. DIvisions and conferences are a great and effective way of squeezing a lot of teams into a national comp. 16 teams is fine in one league. 32 (NFL) is way too many... 18 is right on the edge of being a crowded system.

My one dislike of the NFL system is that you basically only play 4 teams from the other conference, and when the season's done, you come to a superbowl between two teams who it's likely have only played each other once in 4 years. Also, the idea that the two best teams in the league could very easily come from one conference, and NOT play in the superbowl/grand final really seems wrong to me.

I hate the conference idea purely because it reeks of USA sporting comps (NHL, MLB, NFL etc etc). First we call the draft camp a combine, what’s next? Organ players over the PA and the crowd chanting “De-fence, De-fence” when the ball goes inside 50?? – spare me.

Keep the AFL what it is, leave the rules and the scheduling alone.

Disagree. The NFL does a number of things WAY better than the AFL. Some of them massively important things too, like the age of drafted players and their research into depression associated with the game, as well as concussion. They've always had a draft, and that's something that's improved the AFL. They have testing before the draft, call it what you like... I hate "americanising" things, and love how our game is different. But we can borrow things from the NFL's professionalism, without sounding like our grandmas when it comes to what these systems are called.

I hated Gridiron as much as anyone a few years ago, and now having spent time in the states, in my opinion it really is as big and as good as football gets, outside of Aussie Rules.

There are people who actually WANT some of what makes NFL great to be instituted by the AFL. Their opinions count as much as people who resist the american system despite not knowing anything about it.

I think it'll be ages before anyone gets keen on the idea, but I reckon if they had the guts to bring it in, people would learn to love it a lot, and wonder why it wasn't brought in ages ago. Particularly if the league wants to add more teams, which it probably does. I particularly like the 4 year rotation. That's great.

If people don't like the current system, watch the epic meltdown in the Hun when Collingwood finishes 13-9 and misses the finals while an 11-11 team that finishes second in its division makes it. The system isn't ideal, but it isn't broken. Part of Feldman's idea could be implemented - the rotating fixture could work fine with a regular ladder in place. Conferences and divisions are unnecessary for the AFL. They work in the US and that's fine, but it doesn't mean they should be used here. There are plenty of other US sporting ideas I'd look at here before a divisional structure (franchise player tags, a less insane zealotry to suspend half the competition every week, better live to internet packages for starters).

Agreed.

A conference system is merely a formal written version of what the current ladder system should already be producing. We do not need to set out formal conferences to ensure teams play each other a fair number of times. The AFL can do that themselves within the current system.

We can't have a fair single season: that would require 34 games, with everyone playing everyone else home and away. Since that can't happen, the next best alternative is to have equality over a period of years (i.e. not one). So, like the NFL, you could have a 3/4 year period in which each team plays each other team a certain number of times, and develop equality that way.