5 minutes ago, layzie said:

 

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?  

 

It doesn't. The big carrot is the TV rights, which again with 19 teams changes nothing as there will still be the same number of games each week.

I don't believe we have the talent or the crowd participation to get to 20 teams. When Richmond and Melbourne both get sub 30,000 fans to a home game, what is the likelihood that you will get 30,000 consistently to Tassie games or Canberra games? We keep expanding the competition, but the competition doesn't get better. Umpiring is shocking, TV coverage is terrible, MRP is a joke, and each year the talent gets thinner and thinner beyond the top end.

We have teams with 100+ years of history be cellar dwellers for years, Freo is still yet to win a flag and they've been around for a long time, not to mention GC and GWS sucking the AFL dry while achieving absolutely nothing.

20 teams is not sustainable, unless you are investing proper money in grass roots footy and getting kids involved at a very young age to develop talent and participation. But the AFL is not spending money at that level, all they are doing is spending money at the top end.

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

20 teams is not sustainable, unless you are investing proper money in grass roots footy and getting kids involved at a very young age to develop talent and participation. But the AFL is not spending money at that level, all they are doing is spending money at the top end.

And that is where the focus needs to be. It's not glamorous, it's not going to get AFL CEO's meetings with Amazon executives but it has  been a neglected part of the game for a long time now and the AFL has done bugger all to improve it. 

Edited May 2, 20232 yr by layzie

22 minutes ago, layzie said:

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?  

 

Don't think there is a carrot really. It's more that the AFL is not prepared to remove any existing teams to better spread things out are they? 

Obviously the completion is going south. After the cumbersome additions of the 19th and 20th teams, some clear thinking  individuals with foresight (“look through the looking glass Alice”) may decide to maximise the league to 12 teams. Giving the best players the opportunity to compete in competitive teams. Socialism and mammon are not easy partners.
 

 

Edited May 2, 20232 yr by Tarax Club
Andrew Dillon reprises the Mad Hatter?

1 hour ago, layzie said:

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?  

 

well you did ask, layzie, so here it is

1 hour ago, layzie said:

And that is where the focus needs to be. It's not glamorous, it's not going to get AFL CEO's meetings with Amazon executives but it has  been a neglected part of the game for a long time now and the AFL has done bugger all to improve it. 

The AFL needs to spend a lot more money at lower levels including with umpiring. It is beyond a joke that a competition where millions are spent each week on gambling, has part time umpires impacting results.

I heard Dill mention yesterday about the bounce, and needing to maybe remove it from our game because we need more umpires. How about instead of trying to change the game, you change the system. You start umpiring academies, you pay them a full time wage, you have them train every day like the players do, and you get them to a consistent level.

The AFL can't even properly sustain the VFL competition, let alone grass roots and junior footy.

 

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well you did ask, layzie, so here it is

The best kind. 

3 hours 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.

Yet you can probably count the number of players with Asian heritage - which makes up a huge chunk of those numbers - on one hand. Not a great deal of Kiwi’s in the league either despite Gawn and Dusty’s efforts.

Some results with getting African kids drafted. They have great athletic traits for AFL footy but it’s not a huge population and attracting them away from basketball and soccer isn’t easy.

Meanwhile it’s getting harder to be drafted if you parents aren’t wealthy or you haven’t first been drafted by a private school at 12 or 15 with a scholarship.

And whilst there’s still some room for shorter players you’d want to be 183cm to play midfield, 195cm to play key tall and 2m+ to ruck. Whilst being able to run a sub 6:30 2km and a sub 3 second 20m sprint. That rules out a heap of kids right away.

When it comes to talls you can see in most drafts that there’s a big struggle to find them, yet alone keep them healthy. Rucks are a little easier to draft because teams have pretty much embraced the idea they won’t be ready and taking athletes and willing to give them years of development. 

I think the most pressing issue that is at the forefront of all our minds is to make sure that Geelong don’t lose their home ground advantage and that no “big” clubs ever have to play there.

7 hours ago, dee-tox said:

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

With the current predicaments of North, WCE & Hawks (along with ineptness of GC), i'd argue that the talent pool is too shallow with 18 teams. Need to get back to 16 teams to have a strong comp imo.

The only forseeable 20th team on the horizon that i can think of is that the MFC becomes the superpower once again, enough to have an MFC 2nd's team enter the comp 😝

Whatever happen I just want to make sure that we’re bullet proof when Tasmania’s drafting concessions kick in and in a position to dominate the competition for years to come. 

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well you did ask, layzie, so here it is

I like your 3/4 length army pants in that pic. For some reason I always imagined you were taller Daisycutter.

10 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I like your 3/4 length army pants in that pic. For some reason I always imagined you were taller Daisycutter.

specsavers for you hbt.

that's a kiwi sheila 🤣

9 hours 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.

Barossa Valley Winos.

19 teams works if the AFL have the courage to set the fixture for every team to ply each other once, followed by an 8-team final series (as is the current situation). This reduces our current setup by 3 games per team per annum, and the AFL simply will not do this. The revenue is too addictive. 

I am also of the opinion that the national talent pool can cover 20 teams. The amount of players in state leagues, country leagues, and young draft hopefuls who just miss out, are of high enough potential to develop into AFL players. The development of the modern footballer on an AFL list is methodical, science based, and effective. And list managers, scouts and others are seeing more and more mature age draftees or rookies who are close to AFL ready. 

 

 

Bring back University.

They only needed 12 (?) Club Presidents to agree to get approval. I heard Andrew Dillon say that on 360 last night. Then again, it may have been six or 13, I can’t remember because listening to him speak almost put me to sleep. He must’ve been a politician in a former life. 

A 19 team competition fixture can work if you do away with the concept of 'rounds' and have more mid-week games and more erratic breaks between matches. Season length could still be 23 games - or any other length.

eg

Season opens on a Wed night as Carl vs RICH
Between Thur and Sun, there are 8 games between 16 of the other teams

On Monday night Carl plays the remaining team, say StK

2 nights later on Wed night, Rich plays one of the teams that played on Thur (say Coll) and so on, with StK playing Sunday and Rich playing the Monday night game.

If you run games Wed-Mon and are prepared for lots of 5 day breaks, it could work. Perhaps it could also be coupled with a reduction in playing times (17.5 mins) and extended benches to make it more tolerable for players.

I'm not really proposing this, just answering about how it could work with 19 teams.

 

 

Crikey today was scathing of the stadium deal given the housing crisis down there….

11 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….
 

 

Its an idea.

Not one i favour.  I can see the attraction of it.  Just dont see it as overly workable.

Yes the NT loves footy... i get all that.

Are we looking to do this as some sort of social equaliser...or because its truly workable.

I cant see the weather being agreeably participant. 

It's ok... just me.

Amazing that a 19th team is admitted without realistic discussion of the bye.

So 18 byes over 18 weeks followed by 19 teams having a second bye stretched over four weeks. In all probability the four weeks will be mid season but the ladder will be nonsense until around round 15.

Of course the fans will scream for a 20th team.

Compromised drafts for six years

I'm liking relegation of the wooden spooner instead

2 hours ago, Big Col said:

A 19 team competition fixture can work if you do away with the concept of 'rounds' and have more mid-week games and more erratic breaks between matches. Season length could still be 23 games - or any other length.

eg

Season opens on a Wed night as Carl vs RICH
Between Thur and Sun, there are 8 games between 16 of the other teams

On Monday night Carl plays the remaining team, say StK

2 nights later on Wed night, Rich plays one of the teams that played on Thur (say Coll) and so on, with StK playing Sunday and Rich playing the Monday night game.

If you run games Wed-Mon and are prepared for lots of 5 day breaks, it could work. Perhaps it could also be coupled with a reduction in playing times (17.5 mins) and extended benches to make it more tolerable for players.

I'm not really proposing this, just answering about how it could work with 19 teams.

 

 

Too complicated and most teams are not deserving of playing 5/6 times from Mon to Wed.  We need a rest for injury etc. and a chance to live a few days without footy. Too much of it will turn People  off and it will be turned into a TV game more than we want and the AFL favour. 

Delete Essendon, simple.

Lets have 19 teams, 19 minute quarters and a 19 game season. Let's have a photo of 19 in every household and a minutes applause when the 19th interchange rotation is used in a game.

At the 19th pick in the draft we'll have John Schumann come in to sing 'I was only 19' and the first to 19 votes in the Brownlow is crowned the medallist but if they end up losing they then present the medal to the actual winner who then gets to throw a pie in their face. 

Edited May 2, 20232 yr by layzie