AFLW announce 'conferences' for 2019

[kruddler]

But isn't our geographical situation and the team/city make-up one that doesn't suit conferencing.

We cant have a Victorian conference and a Rest of Australia conference. That would mean a league that travels all the time and one that doesn't travel at all.

Split the Victorian teams and it's goodbye to some traditional rivalries.

I just cant see the point to having conferences....but you might have a better understanding of how it would work and could show a makeup.

I went into great detail into how a system could/would work on the old site. I can't access it now.

I'll attempt to recreate a readers digest version for you now.

Firstly,  18 is a $h!t number to work with, but it is possible. 16, or even 20 work much better. Also, currently the 10 vic vs 8 non-vic makeup also causes some problems. But with that in mind, i'll continue.

Secondly, you can have divisions within the conferences to split it down further.
So off the top of my head a breakdown would go something like this.

Don't get caught up in the nomenclature but basically...
2 conferences - AFL vs VFL
2 Divisions in each.

AFL
West
West Coast
Freo
Adelaide
Port Adelaide

North
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS

VFL
South
Hawthorn
Geelong
North Melbourne
St. Kilda
Melbourne

'East'

Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Western Bulldogs

So how would the draw work?
If you are in the VFL....
VFL, play your own divisions both home and away. = 8 games*
Play your other division once (mix of both home/away) = 5 games
vs AFL - north 2 home/2 away (1 in each city home/away - alternate every year) = 4 games
vs AFL - west 2 home/2 away (i in each city home/away - alternate every year) = 4 games

TOTAL Games = 21*

If you are in the AFL...
AFL, play your own divisions both home and away = 6 games
Play your other division once (1 in each city home/away - ) = 4 games
vs VFL- East 2 home/3 away = 5 games
vs VFL - South 2 home/3 away = 5 games

TOTAL Games = 20

Now in order to even up the games, you could simply NOT play one team in your division twice, reducing the number by 1. Giving a total of 20.

So thats a breakdown of our slightly odd geographical nature and how you could come up with an even draw. That can be sorted out without the AFL chooses who plays who every year. Its set in stone. If you play Freo at home one year, you play freo away next year. You'd play west coast away first year, home second year.

That way every team plays in every team at least once and plays in each state once a year.

There are other ways for you to do a breakdown of the draw which are more indepth, but thats a relatively simple one.

How you'd do the finals could be done a million different ways from there.
A couple of simple ones would be...
1. You could do it so the divisions and conferences mean absolutely nothing for finals. You just use them to get the fixture sorted. You could use a traditional ladder as we do now.
2. You could completely revamp our finals system and go to a more NFL style system which guarantees 1st spot in each division a finals spot and a home final at then you could  choose the best of the rest from there, with either traditional ladder or otherwise.


I could continue, but i think you see the point.

[Lods]

Thanks Kruds

Just to clarify a few points

Carlton would play 4 games interstate each year under this system.
How does that differ much in terms of traveling for all clubs from the current system?

We'd play our traditional rivals twice each year...OK with that aspect.
....but am I wrong in saying we'd play Richmond twice every year...but Gold Coast only ever once each year. ( I don't like that! )

I guess the bottom line is... What's the benefit?...How is this a more even system given that each year the strong clubs and the weak clubs would change significantly?

The East and South divisions look fairly even at present...that wouldn't always be the case.

[kruddler]

Thanks Kruds

Just to clarify a few points

Carlton would play 4 games interstate each year under this system.
How does that differ much in terms of traveling for all clubs from the current system?

We'd play our traditional rivals twice each year...OK with that aspect.
....but am I wrong in saying we'd play Richmond twice every year...but Gold Coast only ever once. ( I don't like that!)

I guess the bottom line is... What's the benefit?...How is this a more even system given that each year the strong clubs and the weak clubs would change significantly?

The East and South divisions look fairly even at present...that wouldn't always be the case.

The current system is hard to nail down, because it isn't really a system. Add to that the fact that some teams sell games interstate (eg Hawthorn and North Melbourne being put in the 'south' category because of their tassie connection).
Basically the AFL 'tries' to do what i'm proposing. 1 game in each state each year, each team in each state at least once a year. You get the China, Tassie, Darwin, Canberra etc games in there, that would changes the aboved breakdown.
Short version, very similar to now.

Yes, we'd play Richmond twice every year (well, 4 out of every 5 years we would, you'd drop a game to get down to 20 under that system).
Yes, we'd only play Gold Coast once (excluding finals). That is basically the point of the system. To lock in who you play each and every year, without the biased hand of the AFL having a say in it.
Of course you would probably play the teams you only ever play once in pre-season games and what not.

Yes, some times one division will be stronger than the other. But that occurs now. One team always has a tougher draw than someone else. That changes from year to year though.

The benefit is, the AFL don't get to handpick who gets an easy draw and who gets a tough draw. Which is currently the case.

[Thryleon]

If we were going to copy another competition,  I'd rather copy the English Premier League.

Play each team twice home and away.  At the end of a 34 game season you have your Premier.

Most consistent team wins the league.

[Lods]

The benefit is, the AFL don't get to handpick who gets an easy draw and who gets a tough draw. Which is currently the case.

If that's a benefit I'd take it....but it's not that predictable....Who would have thought Adelaide would miss the eight?
Even the conference system you outline cant be predictable other than guaranteeing "who plays who"

Back to the women....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/a...MP=soc_568

[Peter Brady]

If we were going to copy another competition,  I'd rather copy the English Premier League.

Play each team twice home and away.  At the end of a 34 game season you have your Premier.

Most consistent team wins the league.

Add a team from Tasmania and Canberra.
Have a ten team Premier league (AFL).
Have a ten team Divison 2
Promotion and relegation.
Each team plays each other twice.
18 game season with finals.
Top 2 Teams (D2)go up.
Bottom 2 (AFL) go down.

Oops!
Bad idea :

[kruddler]

If we were going to copy another competition,  I'd rather copy the English Premier League.

Play each team twice home and away.  At the end of a 34 game season you have your Premier.

Most consistent team wins the league.

Obviously if there was any chance of the AFL and AFLPA agreeing to that many games, it would happen, but its not going to happen.

My suggested proposal is to keep it similar to the current length.

[kruddler]

Add a team from Tasmania and Canberra.
Have a ten team Premier league (AFL).
Have a ten team Divison 2
Promotion and relegation.
Each team plays each other twice.
18 game season with finals.
Top 2 Teams go up.
Bottom 2 go down.

Oops!
Bad idea :

Under 1 of my original suggestions i eluded to earlier, i suggested the same addition of those 2 teams.

It would make the whole conference/division system a million times easier to implement, understand and manipulate to give better results.

Problem with the 2 up and 2 down type scenario is the salary cap, and retention of players from the lower clubs.

[Peter Brady]

Under 1 of my original suggestions i eluded to earlier, i suggested the same addition of those 2 teams.

It would make the whole conference/division system a million times easier to implement, understand and manipulate to give better results.

Problem with the 2 up and 2 down type scenario is the salary cap, and retention of players from the lower clubs.

And we'd be stuck in Division 2
I wonder though ( just being serious for a moment. )
I reckon there would be as much interest in the club even if they were languishing in that second division.
Sponsorship, gate receipts, memberships even broadcast rights would still be strong for all those D2 sides.

[kruddler]

And we'd be stuck in Division 2
I wonder though ( just being serious for a moment. )
I reckon there would be as much interest in the club even if they were languishing in that second division.
Sponsorship, gate receipts, memberships even broadcast rights would still be strong for all those D2 sides.

Initially, sure.

Long term? No hope.

How many kids are going to grow up supporting Div 2 sides. Especially when they wouldn't get as much (if any) air time by comparison.