Related coverage

Liam Anthony of North Melbourne is tackled by Andrew Embley of the Eagles during the AFL Round 03 match between the North Melbourne Kangaroos v West Coast Eagles at Etihad Stadium, Melbourne.
When the AFL expands to 18 teams in 2012, questions over scheduling will become more of a dilemma for the league, with a conference system one of the few options available to balance fairness and marketability in its draw.
The current system of 16 teams playing 22 rounds obviously has the flaw of creating an imbalance where some teams are forced to play stronger opponents twice in a year.
The AFL won’t condense the season to 17 matches, each team playing each other once, as some, such as the AFL Players’ Association, have suggested for obvious fiscal reasons, while expanding so each team plays each other home and away would extend the regular season to 34 weeks plus finals, which obviously isn’t possible.
One option is a conference system in which the competition is split into two different divisions, with teams in their own division playing each other home and away in addition to playing teams in the other division once.
It makes sense. Every team plays each other at least once, there is regularity in terms of which teams you play twice, and the season would be extended to a manageable 25 home and away rounds.
But deciding on how teams are split into the two conferences poses a huge dilemma.
In America, where the conference system is widely used, there is the easy distinction that can be made by geography. For example, in the NBA, the Eastern and Western conferences are easily split by the North American landmass.
For the AFL however, being heavily weighted in Melbourne, this poses some problems.
At first sight the obvious option appears to be to split the conferences into Victorian and non-Victorian (although, with ten Victorian teams and eight non-Victorian teams, one of the Victorian teams would be forced to the dark side) divisions.
But while this would retain the AFL’s valuable Melbourne blockbusters, it would be woefully unfair to the non-Victorian clubs, who would have to travel to Perth, Queensland, Adelaide and Sydney twice each, while the Victorian teams would rarely have to leave the state, possibly only having to travel four or five times when they play teams from the other conference in away fixtures – unless it’s decided that the Victorian teams must play the non-Victorian conference teams away, guaranteeing each of them must leave Melbourne at least eight times each while compensating the non-Victorian conference with more home games for all their extra travel (did you get all that?).
But the fairer option is mixing up the Victorian and interstate teams.
Again, there can be no real geographical basis for the divisional split, therefore, and they would be ad hoc creations to cater for fairness while trying to retain traditional rivalries.
But while Collingwood and Essendon, Carlton and Richmond and the other traditional Victorian rivals could be grouped into the same conference, the non-Victorian rivals shouldn’t really be aligned together.
West Coast and Fremantle, for example, would surely need to be split into separate conferences so there is an even balance of trips to Perth for the rest of the teams. For the sake of fairness, the same should apply for Adelaide-Port Power, Brisbane-Gold Coast and Sydney-Greater Western Sydney.
This, however, limits the AFL’s blockbuster fixture options. If the likes of the Eagles and Dockers were split into two separate conferences, then West Australian fans would only see one derby per season.
Figuring out who goes into which conference and appeasing the demands of each club will be an extremely difficult task for the AFL.
The conference system also shouldn’t be flexible and ever changing. If rivalries and meaning are going to be developed in the two conferences, then it needs time to settle. If the teams in each conference are changed each season, perhaps using some sort of seeding system, then it would take a lot longer for fans of the game to embrace the conference system and the rivalries within that.
So while a conference system appears to be the way to go in the next expansion phase, there remains the scheduling dilemma for the AFL in balancing blockbuster fixtures with fairness, let alone deciding the make up of the conferences.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.


April 12th 2010 @ 8:01am
Redb said | April 12th 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Good article Adrian, there is no simple solution.
The EPL has 20 teams I think but they play far more games in the season, 18 teams seems unruly and there is no two conference set up that really works.
Need to look at 3 conferences with mutliple cross over games as Sheeks suggests above. Nice work.
I think the AFL will need to be careful with the new teams that older clubs are not left to rot at the bottom with little prospect in the future. A 3 conference set up will enable 3 minor premiers something for fans to hang their hat on.
April 12th 2010 @ 8:42am
Mister Football said | April 12th 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
A future expansion to 20 teams will allow a very nice split of 4 x 5 conferences, with 5 WA/SA clubs, 5 Northern clubs, and the Vict/Tas clubs being split into 2 x 5.
Each team plays the others in the conference twice, and plays the other 15 teams, giving 23 rounds, which is spot on the money in terms of the desired lenth of an AFL system.
A zillion options then arise about how you have a finals system.
Also agree with Redb that the day will arise when a conference premiership will be a valuable piece of silverware in an age where being the top team of 20 could mean a long, long wait between drinks (although many of us have already had to endure 50+ year waits).
April 13th 2010 @ 6:05am
Michael C said | April 13th 2010 @ 6:05am | Report comment
MrF…..you learn to celebrate Prelim final wins……
……ah heck, the Doggies fall down on that score too!!!……………gee that’s tough.
picture (Billy Crystal in Princess Bride) Miracle Max’s wife saying ‘Adelaide, Adelaide, Adelaide’ (instead of Humperdink, Humperdink, Humperdink)…..
April 12th 2010 @ 12:39pm
Black Diamonds said | April 12th 2010 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
I agree with Mister Football on the 20 teams – but with 18 teams you can start moving in that direction – even setting up a Conference System that is completely fair – but also provides a rationale for 1 more WA/SA team and 1 more NSW/QLD team.
AFL West
4 WA/SA Teams
AFL North
4 NSW/QLD Teams
AFL Central
5 VIC Teams
AFL South
5 VIC Teams.
Year 1
Align AFL Central & AFL West
Align AFL North & AFL South
Each team plays each other team in its Conference Twice and the other teams it is aligned with Twice, and plays the other 9 teams once.
So you have 8(2) + 9(1) = 25 Games – as Adrian outlined above – but split into 4 Geographically sensible breakdowns.
And it also provides the rationale to “even up” the Divisions by adding 2 more teams.
Seems the perfect way to go to me – and I have emailed various AFL officials about this – and will continue to do so.
June 19th 2010 @ 5:36pm
Dogs Of War said | June 19th 2010 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
Very similar to what I suggest the NRL go with. It maximises attendances, allows new sponsorship opportunities, while ensuring that teams from each conference are guaranteed to qualify for the finals series.
April 12th 2010 @ 12:44pm
Black Diamonds said | April 12th 2010 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
You can even retrospectively award “Cups”to the best performed AFL West Teams (1991 – 2010?) and AFL North teams (1987 – 2010?) in any given year.
Its actually quite an even battle between Adelaide, Port Adelaide and West Coast for supremacy in the West – despite Port Adelaide joining 6 years after Adelaide.
“Matthews/Roos” Cup
1987 Sydney Swans (1)
1988 Sydney Swans (2)
1989 Sydney Swans (3)
1990 Sydney Swans (4)
1991 Sydney Swans (5)
1992 Brisbane Bears (1)
1993 Brisbane Bears (2)
1994 Brisbane Bears (3)
1995 Brisbane Bears (4)
1996 Sydney Swans (6)
1997 Sydney Swans (7)
1998 Sydney Swans (8)
1999 Brisbane Lions (5)
2000 Brisbane Lions (6)
2001 Brisbane Lions (7)
2002 Brisbane Lions (8)
2003 Brisbane Lions (9)
2004 Brisbane Lions (10)
2005 Sydney Swans (9)
2006 Sydney Swans (10)
2007 Sydney Swans (11)
2008 Sydney Swans (12)
2009 Brisbane Lions (11)
“Farmer/Williams” Cup
1991 West Coast (1)
1992 West Coast (2)
1993 Adelaide Crows (1)
1994 West Coast (3)
1995 West Coast (4)
1996 West Coast (5)
1997 Adelaide Crows (2)
1998 Adelaide Crows (3)
1999 West Coast (6)
2000 Adelaide Crows (4)
2001 Port Adelaide (1)
2002 Port Adelaide (2)
2003 Port Adelaide (3)
2004 Port Adelaide (4)
2005 West Coast (7)
2006 West Coast (8)
2007 Port Adelaide (5)
2008 Adelaide Crows (5)
2009 Adelaide Crows (6)
As an aside – Fremantle are yet to be the best team in the West – maybe 2010 is their year? A stepping stone to greater glory on a truly national level perhaps?
April 13th 2010 @ 5:41am
VooDoo said | April 13th 2010 @ 5:41am | Report comment
Or we could just keep it as is. We’ve had an unbalanced draw for many years now, and it doesn’t worry me one bit. I prefer seeing my team play rivals more often than non-rivals, even if they are stronger than some bottom-of-the-ladder teams. You’d be hard-pressed to argue that any team has been denied a premiership because of their draw over the past two decades – you still have to be the best team on the day most of the regular season and throughout the finals. Keep it as it is.
April 13th 2010 @ 7:50am
Mister Football said | April 13th 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
I would agree with that – after 23 seasons of unbalanced draws – not a single team has been denied a premiership because of that – going a step further – not a single team has been denied a top four finish because of the draw – and anyway, once the finals series starts, it’s there to be won if you’re up to it.
June 2nd 2010 @ 10:11pm
prsancho said | June 2nd 2010 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
The best I could come up with was:
Conference 1 – Essendon, Melbourne, Collingwood, Carlton, Western Bulldogs, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sidney and Western Sidney.
Conference 2 – North Melbourne, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond, Saint Kilda, West Coast, Freemantle, Adelaide and Port Adelaide.
Up to discussions…
June 19th 2010 @ 4:59pm
Football Person 2 said | June 19th 2010 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
ill Admit Ive only started watching AFL this season but don’t do it .
June 24th 2010 @ 5:24pm
Damian said | June 24th 2010 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
I have a more comprehensive proposal, that resolves an aspect of the unfair scheduling caused by the imbalance between playing some teams once and other twice.
Play a Home and Away season where each team plays each other once. Then split the ladder in two, where the top eight teams play a round robin for finals spots. Then have only 6 or 5 or even 4 teams in the finals. The bottom of the ladder would play each in their own round robin, but not for playoff spots (perhaps for determining the home versus away scheduling in the following season). Note that at round 15 each year since the expanded competition, there was only a single instance of the ninth-placed team making the finals and no team outside the eight at round 15 has ever played in a Grand Final.
July 18th 2010 @ 8:49pm
Peter Natt said | July 18th 2010 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
I’m a massive fan of American sports, but I’m certainly not a fan of how their leagues are structured so that each division has it’s own ladder/standings. I have little problem with how the NFL is divided into two conferences though, due to there being 32 teams. If the AFL is going to implement a conference based system, it should be implemented SOLELY for scheduling purposes. The AFL should keep the one ladder/standings for the entire league, unlike the NFL which has 8 different ladders/standings, one for each of the league’s 8 divisions. I don’t want a farce where a mediocre team (with a losing record) from a weak conference or division makes the finals, as often happens in the NFL. I love how Australian sports don’t have conferences and divisions that determine standings like in the United States where it’s a farce. The teams that make the finals should be determined by how many games they have won and not by how many games they have won in comparison to other teams in their conference. Why should a team that finishes with a mediocre record in a weak conference make the finals in place of a team that won more games in the other conference but weren’t able to make the finals merely because they’re in a stronger conference? This frequently happens in the NFL. However, I see little problem if the conference system in the AFL is SOLELY used for scheduling purposes.
July 22nd 2010 @ 5:10am
Peter Natt said | July 22nd 2010 @ 5:10am | Report comment
A conference system in the AFL and other Australian sports leagues could be a good idea, if it was used only for scheduling purposes and not to determine standings/ladder positions.
For instance, the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL each have two conferences divided into 3 or 4 divisions, depending on the league. Each division has their own standings/ladder. I love how Australian sports leagues only have the one ladder for the entire league.
In the NFL it’s commonplace for teams that finish with mediocre win-loss record to still make the playoffs/finals, solely because they finished on top of their 4-team division (therefore becoming division champions), even though they finish with a worse win-loss record than other teams in their conference or league who did not make the playoffs because they didn’t win their division or get a wildcard spot or even worse, because the club is unlucky enough to be located within a strong (usually) geographic division. The Arizona Cardinals are known be make the playoffs in recent times and even secure at least one game with a home-field advantage with a mediocre record such as 9-7 (worse than other teams who didn’t qualify for the playoffs) because they’re in such a weak division. Although each team plays 6 of their 16 regular season games against divisional opponents, this system is a complete farce because it penalizes teams who don’t have an overly-bad record who happen to be in strong divisions and rewards teams with mediocre records for being in weak divisions. The AFL and other Australian sports are better off without these farcical scenarios. I love American sports, but they way their leagues are structured are not ideal. Teams should be rewarded for the amount of games they have won period, not how many games they have won in comparison to other teams within their division. If the AFL does indeed implement the American system, it wouldn’t take long for there to be massive uproar and fans demanding that the old system of just having one standings/ladder for the entire league be re-instated.
Conferences for scheduling purposes only, fine, but not to determine seeding for finals. It would be a pathetic idea that does not truly reward winning teams and is even controversial by some fans in the US, especially how it’s commonplace for teams with a worse win-loss record to HOST finals against teams with a better win-loss record merely because that team won their division and the other team are a wildcard team. This is just as farcical, if not even more farcical, than teams with a better record than divisional champions not qualifying for the finals.
The AFL and other Australian sports leagues should leave it at one ladder/standings for the entire league and only implement a conference/divisional based system if it’s for scheduling purposes, the way that the American system ought to be for their professional sports leagues.
I would love to hear what everyone thinks about my response.
I’d love to hear your opinions!