The long-awaited issue of an AFL licence to Tasmania will create a 19 team competition later on this decade unless a club falls by the wayside or another licence is granted.

The odd number of teams will create other issues as well. The Gather Round won’t work with an odd number of teams and the fixture will have to be coordinated in a way that all clubs have two byes. And we already have the debate about the unfairness of the fixture when teams play some teams twice in a season and others once.

So this raises two questions ~

• Should there be an odd number of teams?                     and

• If not, from where should Team 20 come?

This thread is about the first question. I will open a separate thread for the question about Team 20.

No

22 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

• If not, from where should Team 20 come?

Relocate Freo to Rottnest Island, change name to the Rats, and start a new team at Claremont

Would have to be Darwin also playing in the Alice 

Merge both [censored] truck teams from the West haha. Problem solved 

Talent pool is too shallow with 20 teams. Norf or Horf can relocate...

Increase to 20 with a team from NT. Just as much a footy heartland as Tasmania. Will obviously need to be bank-rolled by the AFL, but this should be their responsibility as much as anything profit-based. Then form 2 conferences of 10 teams, whence each team plays home and away within their conference (18 games per team per conference) ending in a final four each conference. That’s 180 total games per year across the two conferences, compared to 176 as currently stands. 

Then come up with some funky way to hybridise the finals by mixing the conferences, e.g. 1 v 4 from opposing conferences, 2 v 3, etc (same as current). Pop in a couple of staggered bye-rounds for all teams - perfect chance to pause and reset for injury and fatigue, and reinstate State of Origin. Done properly. That’s all I got. More games, but a less relentless season to ease cumulative loads on players, and the fascinating intrigue of how the best from each conference will match against each other. 
 

Just dunno quite how you create the conferences. The obvious one is Victorian teams one conference, rest of Australia the other (meaning only they have the burden of travel of course = a problem). Would also spice up the interstate rivalry (in a nice way!). All equalisation measures remain. 
 

Ok, bring the dismissals….
 

 

52 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The long-awaited issue of an AFL licence to Tasmania will create a 19 team competition later on this decade unless a club falls by the wayside or another licence is granted.

The odd number of teams will create other issues as well. The Gather Round won’t work with an odd number of teams and the fixture will have to be coordinated in a way that all clubs have two byes. And we already have the debate about the unfairness of the fixture when teams play some teams twice in a season and others once.

So this raises two questions ~

• Should there be an odd number of teams?                     and

• If not, from where should Team 20 come?

This thread is about the first question. I will open a separate thread for the question about Team 20.

there doesn't have to be 2 byes per team. here is an alternative

Quote

here's one way byes could be handled

first 19 rounds each team has a bye

assuming 23 rounds that leaves 4 more rounds with a bye

bottom 4 each have a bye over rounds 20 - 23

after round 23 the finalists each have a bye but the bottom 4 plays their round 23 game (i.e. 2 games)

so 24 weeks and every team has played 23 games

comments?

p.s. or alternatively week 24 the bottom 4 teams play their round 23 concurrently with the first week of the finals.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Jontee said:

Relocate Freo to Rottnest Island, change name to the Rats, and start a new team at Claremont

Sounds silly but there isn't actually a "Perth" team making an extra WA side an easy sell in that sense? Perth also has the largest population outside of the three east coast cities and it is a footy town not a rugby league turn

 

I feel that SA market could support the extra team, but no idea where you'd locate it/name it. With Adelaide and Port Adelaide, adding a South Adelaide would be laughable. Mt Gambier is the second largest urban area in SA by population. Perhaps based north of the city in the Gawler region?

Canberra and Newcastle are double the population of Hobart, and Wollongong is larger than Hobart as well. But the risk with these locations (as well as Townsville and Cairns which are smaller than Hobart) is that they will be money sinks for the game as they aren't AFL heartland. Canberra may be the exception, but has the problem of a more transient population.

Similarly Darwin or the NT (pop. of ~250k with 150k in Darwin itself) probably doesn't have the population or economy to support a team financially

 

If a 20th team is added I think it needs to be ultimately successful financially and not on perpetual life support (because GWS and GCS are still that). For those reasons my gut says the only options are Canberra (more risky and could damage GWS, but does technically grow the market) or SA/WA, both safe but boring.

Edited May 1, 20232 yr by deanox

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The long-awaited issue of an AFL licence to Tasmania will create a 19 team competition later on this decade unless a club falls by the wayside or another licence is granted.

The odd number of teams will create other issues as well. The Gather Round won’t work with an odd number of teams and the fixture will have to be coordinated in a way that all clubs have two byes. And we already have the debate about the unfairness of the fixture when teams play some teams twice in a season and others once.

So this raises two questions ~

• Should there be an odd number of teams?                     and

• If not, from where should Team 20 come?

This thread is about the first question. I will open a separate thread for the question about Team 20.

Well WJ, it seems there is no need to start a separate thread for question 2. Question 1 was eloquently answered by the first poster (Bub). Thereafter we took it upon ourselves to attack question 2. 

20 is too much at this point in time. Still too many clubs being propped up and Tasmania is not a guaranteed banker.

 

I'm a soft touch so would rather another white elephant 20th team than anybody losing their club BUT if I was being ruthless I'd pick the most unfortunate Victorian club when the music stopped and merge them with Gold Coast. And if I was to be an absolute bastard about it I'd point out that Arden Street would work nicely for us as a city training venue if no longer required by North.

So it’s 19 teams. Final 8. 11 miss out. Constant bye allocated.  More travel.  Tassie has population of 500,000. Hobart population 240,000. Expect small crowds of 18,000-20,000 post the initial mania. More impacted draft with 12 of 1st 18 draftee players allocated to picks for the Devils in “2025”.  Free agents to Devils.  

1 hour ago, dee-tox said:

Talent pool is too shallow with 20 teams. Norf or Horf can relocate...

Merge Norf and Horf and call them Norforn

Edited May 1, 20232 yr by Katrina Dee Fan

1 hour ago, dee-tox said:

Talent pool is too shallow with 20 teams. Norf or Horf can relocate...

It's too shallow for 19 let alone 20. 

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Sounds silly but there isn't actually a "Perth" team making an extra WA side an easy sell in that sense? Perth also has the largest population outside of the three east coast cities and it is a footy town not a rugby league turn

 

I feel that SA market could support the extra team, but no idea where you'd locate it/name it. With Adelaide and Port Adelaide, adding a South Adelaide would be laughable. Mt Gambier is the second largest urban area in SA by population. Perhaps based north of the city in the Gawler region?

Canberra and Newcastle are double the population of Hobart, and Wollongong is larger than Hobart as well. But the risk with these locations (as well as Townsville and Cairns which are smaller than Hobart) is that they will be money sinks for the game as they aren't AFL heartland. Canberra may be the exception, but has the problem of a more transient population.

Similarly Darwin or the NT (pop. of ~250k with 150k in Darwin itself) probably doesn't have the population or economy to support a team financially

 

If a 20th team is added I think it needs to be ultimately successful financially and not on perpetual life support (because GWS and GCS are still that). For those reasons my gut says the only options are Canberra (more risky and could damage GWS, but does technically grow the market) or SA/WA, both safe but boring.

WA is the natural place for a third team. Population and wealth over there. SA too small a market, ditto NT.

Lived in Darwin six months during Covid. 
Too hot. Barely survivable now. Predicted to get hotter. 

3 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Talent pool is too shallow with 20 teams. Norf or Horf can relocate...

This is not a valid argument for 19 nor 20 teams. When we were an 18 team comp there were 18 million people in Aus.  There are now 26 million people... we are looking for 70-80 players.

2 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

This is not a valid argument for 19 nor 20 teams. When we were an 18 team comp there were 18 million people in Aus.  There are now 26 million people... we are looking for 70-80 players.

I agree it is shallow thinking.

3 hours ago, Webber said:

Increase to 20 with a team from NT. Just as much a footy heartland as Tasmania. Will obviously need to be bank-rolled by the AFL, but this should be their responsibility as much as anything profit-based. Then form 2 conferences of 10 teams, whence each team plays home and away within their conference (18 games per team per conference) ending in a final four each conference. That’s 180 total games per year across the two conferences, compared to 176 as currently stands. 

Then come up with some funky way to hybridise the finals by mixing the conferences, e.g. 1 v 4 from opposing conferences, 2 v 3, etc (same as current). Pop in a couple of staggered bye-rounds for all teams - perfect chance to pause and reset for injury and fatigue, and reinstate State of Origin. Done properly. That’s all I got. More games, but a less relentless season to ease cumulative loads on players, and the fascinating intrigue of how the best from each conference will match against each other. 
 

Just dunno quite how you create the conferences. The obvious one is Victorian teams one conference, rest of Australia the other (meaning only they have the burden of travel of course = a problem). Would also spice up the interstate rivalry (in a nice way!). All equalisation measures remain. 
 

Ok, bring the dismissals….
 

 

Really I think the main issue with the NT is that their domestic season is not in sync with the AFL, they play through largely our 'summer' don't they?
 

30 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Really I think the main issue with the NT is that their domestic season is not in sync with the AFL, they play through largely our 'summer' don't they?
 

Good point. They’d have to play home games in Alice Springs I guess for that reason (maybe March-April games in Darwin). Their summer season might work well for players looking to be picked up for AFL team. 

Relocate the failed GCS project and keep it at 18. Few would care, unlike Norf or Dawks

 

3 hours ago, radar said:

Lived in Darwin six months during Covid. 
Too hot. Barely survivable now. Predicted to get hotter. 

Agree. Been up here over 20 years (must be troppo!). Pray for a good dry season every year with some cooler southern influence. Only liveable time of the year. 

Born and bred in Melbourne of course. Would l go back there to live? Never! Too bloody cold and crowded. 

Edited May 2, 20232 yr by Tarax Club

1 hour ago, Ouch! said:

This is not a valid argument for 19 nor 20 teams. When we were an 18 team comp there were 18 million people in Aus.  There are now 26 million people... we are looking for 70-80 players.

The NFL has 32 teams which is a team per every 10 million people in the USA. The English Premier League has 20 teams which means 1 team per every 3.2 million people in England. Yes they have a pyramid structure with promotion and relegation so expand that to the EFL Championship that's 44 clubs and that's 1 team per 1.25 million people. These are leagues where this is undoubtedly the most popular sport and watched across the world.

The AFL currently has 1 team per 1.4 million people in the country with the markets in each state being very different. With all this being said I'd like to know how having 20 teams better services the population. What's the big carrot?  

 

Edited May 2, 20232 yr by layzie

3 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Merge Norf and Horf and call them Norforn

And Clarkson could coach them 🤗

An odd number of teams would make the abomination of the “draw” (FIXture) even worse, but I guess we can all surmise who will be looked after and who won’t. 

The talent pool is already low so it will dig ever deeper. Merging Saints Hawks and North (all of whom have voluntarily played in Tasmania) creates a 16 team competition which somewhat equalises the FIXture and also spreads the talent pool both for players and umpires.  This will never be allowed by those who control the AFL, that is the media, who would prefer 20 teams. 
In summary we will be stuck with the bye bye bye VFL type of scheduling which is so grossly unfair.  But then fairness has never ever bee a priority at AFL HQ.