Last week I wrote about Collingwood being the root of all evil in the AFL. At least that’s how some Magpies supporters took it. In reality, I wrote the equivalent of the Reader’s Digest version of War and Peace outlining the current problems with AFL fixtures.
I also listed the options to make the draw fairer for all concerned.
I came to the conclusion that a conference system would be the best option as it would make the draw fairer while not significantly increasing or decreasing the number of games.
How would such a system work? What teams would be in what conference? How would the finals work? Am I being crazier than Mark ‘Jacko’ Jackson in a TV commercial?
Well it gives me great pleasure to unveil Lee’s AFL Conference and Finals System, or LAFLCAFS for short.
As I said in my last piece, if there are enough suggestions and possible tweaks I’ll consider changing it to TRAFLCAFS (The Roar’s AFL Conference and Finals System).
Put on the kettle, pull up your socks and strap yourself in.
——————————————-
Lee’s AFL Conference and Finals System (LAFLCAFS) v1.0
1) THE CONFERENCES
Firstly, split the competition into two nine-team conferences. To avoid the inevitable petty squabbling between clubs over who should go in what conference I’m simply splitting the teams into east and west.
The interstate teams are straightforward. Logically 4 of those teams fit into each conference. The WA and SA teams would be in the Western Conference and the NSW and Queensland teams in the Eastern Conference.
However, Victoria poses a bit of a problem.
To resolve this I’m simply counting in from the club in the eastern most suburb of Melbourne until I’ve counted five clubs. Those clubs would be placed in the Eastern Conference and the rest in the Western.
By my reckoning this is how the two conferences would look:
Eastern Conference:
Brisbane, Collingwood, Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Sydney.
Western Conference:
Adelaide, Carlton, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, West Coast, Western Bulldogs.
Each team would play every team in their conference twice, once at home and once away, and every team in the other conference once.
For the teams in the other conference, if you play them at home one year then you play them away the next (and vice versa).
Thus each season would be 25 games long.
It feels like we’re off to a good start. I don’t know about you but I’m feeling more excited than Hayden Ballantyne kicking a behind after the siren for a one point loss. Let’s hope I don’t have the same let down.
2) THE FINALS
The top 4 teams from each conference at the end of the season make the Finals. The system would be a slightly altered version of the current top 8.
In order to ensure that any two teams could only play each other a maximum of three times in one season, including the Finals and the Grand Final, the first round of the Finals will criss-cross across the two conferences.
Here’s how the finals system would work:
Round 1:
1st Qualifying Final: West first seed vs East second seed.
2nd Qualifying Final: East 1 vs West 2.
1st Elimination Final: West 3 vs East 4
2nd Elimination Final: East 3 vs West 4.
Round 2:
1st Semi Final: Loser QF1 vs Winner EF1.
2nd Semi Final: Loser QF2 vs Winner EF2.
Round 3:
1st Preliminary Final: Winner QF1 vs Winner SF2
2nd Preliminary Final: Winner QF2 vs Winner SF1
Round 4:
Grand Final: Winners of Preliminary Finals play off. If the game is a draw we go to a thrilling Scissors, Paper, Rock contest.
3) THE NAB CUP AND PRESEASON
The preference would be to scrap the current NAB Preseason Cup.
Players and coaches don’t like playing it because of the altered rules and apart from the Final, it doesn’t tend to have great TV ratings. Besides, we now have to fit in three more matches.
Unfortunately the likelihood of scrapping the NAB Cup altogether is slim. The league wants a build up to the season for sponsorship. The chase of the almighty dollar is always goal numero uno down at AFL House.
So my proposal is that there are two rounds of preseason scratch match games played predominantly in country towns like the current NAB Challenge.
However, like the movie ‘Sixth Sense‘ there is a twist. It’s not quite as spellbinding as finding out Bruce Willis is a ghost, but it makes more sense.
On the second weekend of the pre-season matches, the AFL Night Grand Final is held.
The two teams in the Night Grand Final would be those that had the best winning ratios playing night games during the previous home-and-away season.
It wouldn’t be decided on total number of wins as not all teams play the same amount of night games each season.
For example, if the Sydney Swans played eight night games the previous season and won six of them, their night game winning ratio is 75%.
If that is one of the top two winning ratios in night games from across the league then they would make the Night Grand Final held before the start of the next season.
The game would be held at the home ground of the team with the best night game winning percentage from the previous season. Any winning ratio ties can be decided by using the traditional points percentage but for night games only.
I’m sure most teams would prefer to make the home-and away Finals but it could make a nice consolation prize for a side who misses out.
I’m sure clubs would rate it higher than the “I ran in a race” sticker given out to children who don’t place in their race at the school athletics carnival.
Would a last round home-and-away round game involving a team that can’t make the finals but could make the Night Grand Final for the start of the next season have increased entertainment value? I believe so.
This way the AFL still has it’s preseason sponsorship vehicle. Additionally, calling it the Night Grand Final again and using meaningful games to decide the combatants brings some significance back to winning the preseason cup.
4) THE DRAFT
Nothing changes really. The team with the worst overall record across the two conferences gets the first pick. The team with the second worst overall record gets the second pick and so on.
Though admittedly I think I might be saying this out of pure laziness.
Attempting to discuss the issues with the draft would be opening up a can full of more worms than a ten tonne compost heap. Let’s save that for another day.
5) THE VERDICT
In my previous article I identified for key issues wrong with the current AFL fixtures system. So how does LAFLCAFS help these?
Issue 1, too few teams playing each other twice, would be resolved by the fact the season has expanded by a couple of games; thus decreasing the advantage of playing a poor side twice.
Additionally, as each conference is a separate ladder then the advantage is further diminished by the fact that any teams playing a poor side twice, or good side twice for that matter, are only competing against each other for ladder position.
Issue 2, there being no real rhyme nor reason to the schedule, would be resolved by providing the team’s with a stable and relatively known schedule from year to year.
Issue 3, the lack of travel by high profile Melbourne teams, would be mitigated by having an even amount of interstate teams in each conference. Unless they choose to sell home games interstate, each Victorian team would be guaranteed to travel outside of Victoria 12 times over two home-and-away seasons. No more, no less.
Issue 4, the burden of travel for teams on the eastern and western seaboards, is eased by ensuring teams on opposite extremes of the country aren’t in the same conference. Thus they only have to travel to the other side of the country four times over two home-and-away seasons.
Other benefits:
– Two of the biggest Victorian draw cards, Collingwood and Hawthorn, playing 2 games a year in both NSW and Queensland. This is good win for helping promote the game in the non-traditional states.
– The WA Derby, SA Showdown, Queensland Qlang-Clash and NSW Discombobulation Altercation are guaranteed to happen twice a year.
The Negatives:
– Essendon, Geelong and Carlton are in the opposite conference to Collingwood and thus each would only play the Pies only once a year. Though I kind of like that they would only play each other once a season.
To me the Bombers and Magpies on ANZAC Day clash would take on even more significance as a marquee event if it were to be the only time the two sides were going to match up all season. The same goes for Geelong or Carlton squaring off with the Magpies.
– The Finals system is limited to only the top four sides in each conference. As such there is the chance that a side that misses out on the Finals in one conference is a better side, or even has a better record, than sides that make the Finals in the other conference.
My counter to this would be that deserving sides also miss the Finals under the case under the current system.
If you went through year-to-year I’m sure you could easily argue that a side finishing ninth was a better side than the team finishing eighth. The difference in the end being that the ninth side had a tougher schedule.
Can you definitively say that Carlton deserved to make the Finals ahead of North Melbourne in 2010? They both finished on 11 wins last season.
Carlton played teams who didn’t make the Finals 12 times while North played the same teams just 10 times. Carlton won against top 8 sides just twice while North Melbourne beat top 8 sides 3 times.
Additionally, the Kangaroos beat the Blues the only time they played during the season. At the very least we can agree it is very muddy as to which side was actually better.
A deserving side could miss out on the Finals under LAFLCAFS. However as the fixtures are fairer, in reality a good side has a better chance of making the Finals.
– LAFLCAFS doesn’t totally provide a totally even draw. Again though, it is a damn sight more fair than the current system due to the issues it addresses.
A totally even draw could only happen if each team played each other twice every season. A 34 round home-and-away season is about as likely to occur as Andrew Demetriou ever conceding that he is wrong.
——————————————–
So there you have it. LAFLCAFS v1.0 for all to pick apart and ridicule. All the things the World Wide Web was invented for (besides pornography).
Please feel free to analyse, suggest and comment. I would love to improve LAFLCAFS so as to make the fairest ever fixture system that will probably never happen, even though it should.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
No, no, no, a thousand times no! The last thing the games needs is a relegation system. There are so many options to improve the fixture (conferences, playing more/less matches, each team playing each other twice over a certain period of time, etc...) that a relegation system is not needed. Nor is it wanted IMO. Certainly not by me. I hate relegation systems; they are unfair, they punish teams who have one disappointing season and make it much more difficult for them to challenge for the flag (they also prevent amazing turn-arounds such as Port's making the GF in 2007, or West Coast's 2011 season which wouldn't be possible if they were in the lower division), and I wouldn't get any thrill from seeing my team 'promoted to the ‘Big League’ ', not when they could make a case for the finals (and the flag.) There is no way in the world I would personally accept a relegation system, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Oh, and if we are going to have a relegation system, which I hate, membership must not be taken into account. If that means Collingwood spends time in the lower divisions, so be it, otherwise it's as unfair as you accuse the current fixture of being (which also takes into account membership.)
Paul Spalding
Guest
I for one couldn't care less if changes like those mooted on this forum are considerd 'soccerising' or 'Americanising' our great game. Something has to be done to the fixturing. It is a blight on the game and holds it up for mockery. If premierships can be decided by it, then something is obviously amiss. The difference between getting the 'double chance', merely making the finals or having home State advantage can come down to simply having a softer draw than your rivals. That is not acceptable. Even the Brownlow and the Coleman medals are affected by teams benefitting from an easier draw. My suggestion, although radical is as follows. - Split the competition into 2 Divisions. Based on their performance in recent years, memberships and their likely futures, I would split the teams like this :- Division 1 Collingwood Carlton Hawthorn Essendon Geelong St.Kilda Western Bulldogs Adelaide Brisbane Sydney West Coast Fremantle Division 2 North Melb Melbourne Richmond Port Adelaide Gold Coast GWS Tasmania 3 New Franchises (possibly Nth Qld, NTerritory, Canberra, A larger provincial Vic centre eg. Bendigo, Ballarat) Televise games from both Divisions but the AFL Premiership team will be the winner of Division 1. Commence promotion/relegation between the two divisions. Winner of Division 2 gets promoted, the wooden spooner in Division 1 gets relegated to Division 2. This immediately would stop teams tanking for draft picks. The excitement of a promotion/relegation system can't be undervalued. Late season games between teams facing relegation can be extremely exciting and emotional. Likewise the thrill for supporters seeing their team promoted to the 'Big League' is immense. No more rewarding mediocrity and everyone gets to play each team in their respective division twice.
Bondy
Guest
Leave the game alone! More about the footy, less about the business. The AFL need to stop telling fans how we will better enjoy OUR game. I love the game not the spectacle. Future generations will also love the game not the gimmick. Make it amature for all I care just maintain the integrity.
Gibbke
Roar Rookie
The best length for a season is 22 rounds or therabouts, simply because of cricket. Any longer and you run into stadium and summer heat issues, because you also need a pre-season structure, which currently is the knockout comp. Players bargaining also stipulates certain break times. I say a 4 conference system, made up of the West (WA/SA), North (Qld/NSW), and two Vic divisions. The non-Vic divisions are self explanatory. The Vic divisions don't necessarily need to be set in stone - perhaps a ranking system or a fixture rotation could ensure you get your blockbusters, and everyone gets their home game v Collingwood equally. Divisions promote rivalry - non-Vic teams are easily promoted. The Vic teams are a little more difficult to quantify, because they all hate each other, and it changes over time...a system that allows this to be spread around in Melbourne would be healthier than telling certain teams that others are "now your bitter enemies for all time"...won't work... The Draw: Two divisions are made up of 5 teams (the Vic ones). Each team plays the others in its conference twice (8 games), and the rest of the AFL (13 games). This makes 21 - the last game could be against an equivalently ranked team from the other Vic division. The two non-Vic divisions of 4 teams would have 6 inter div matches and 14 other division matches (total of 20). To make up the remaining two, you could have return fixtures against the other non-Vic division - sure, that means big road trips, but if you view the finals system below, you'll see it's not an issue. Importantly, if the AFL expands to 20 teams, you have 4 x 5-team divisions, which will give you a 23-game season with no draw gap-filling (8 inter-div, 15 outside). Tasmania could play in either the North or West divisions, depending on which region gets the other team (e.g. WA, SA or NT - you'd think it won't be Melbourne). The Finals: The 4 division winners are ranked 1-4 according to W/L and become the QF teams. The rest of the AFL follows a W/L wildcard procedure similar to the NFL, are ranked 5-8, and play off in the EF's. A wildcard team has a better WL record but is seeded lower than another who won their division? Fine - get over it - you should have won your division! The rankings allow the finals series to follow the current format. The top 4 achieve their results with draws of similar design - all of the non-Vic teams endure almost identical travel arrangements, as do the Vic teams. Together, the pros and cons cancel each other out to a greater degree than currently exists, although you'll never get it perfect until the city of Perth physically picks itself up and moves closer to Melbourne! The Draft: - no changes are necessary. The Pre-Season - The teams want around 4 games each year to dust off the cobwebs...it's so malleable you could do whatever you wanted. If time was tight, maybe a round robin lightning round to sort out qualifiers, and you could shorten the comp to 3 weeks with 4 group qualifiers, if you don't keep it to QF's, SF's and a GF. Either way, it doesn't matter - noone cares as long as there's some match practice... Summary: People grizzle about fairness, equality, preferential treatment, travel...all concepts which can be challenged quite easily because this is a big country with a lot of empty spaces right next to high pop densities. Personally, I don't care about these issues - my Hawks voluntarily make 8 road trips + a year, so I say turn up, shut up and play! But many don't agree - to me, this system preserves what's there with rivalries and season length, but the finalists can all look at each other and say "you had the same or equivalent conditions and matchups to get to where we both are right now"...that's as fair as it will ever get.
Redb
Roar Guru
I think the Vic clubs would love it, less travel. But really this is retrograde step for a National competition.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
I did consider that option Seano. But my initial reaction was that it made things more confusing. Also I felt it sabotaged one of the things that made what I eventually proposed quite fair - that teams with similar schedules are only competing against each other for ladder position. I'm willing to reconsider though. A few posts down Black Diamonds proposes a divisions system with one ladder that I quite like. Though again, I am concerned that it takes away from some of the fairness that a conference system schedule would provide.
Seano
Guest
Lee i had another idea last night regarding how a team witrh a better points and percentage could miss out on finals, could this be fixed by adopting the wild card system from the major league baseball. ie top 3 from each conference are automatic then the best 2 points and percentage fill the final 2 spots, that way the best 8 teams are always in the finals?
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
As you say, I think that one conference is weaker than the other would always be an argument in some way. It could easily be argued that many teams have stronger or weaker schedules than others under the current system. It's just under a conference system it becomes easier to identify (though under my system it is then slightly negated as sides with the similar schedules only compete against each other for ladder position). The conference system I propose is a way to make the system fairer than it currently is. A middle ground between what we have now and what the fairest possible system would be (everyone playing twice. Which wouldn't happen because of how many games would be required). You have good possible analogy there with Major League Baseball so far as there was resistance to the change at first but it was eventually accepted.
Paul
Guest
The only problem I see with mixing Interstate & Victorian teams in a conference or division will be complaints that team X has an easier fixture because of weaker interstate sides. Still, that should be expected, since some people will whinge about anything. Similar whingeing happened here in America when major league baseball went to divisions in 1969. Yet, over time, the objections died as old rivalries became more intense and new rivalries were formed because of divisional scheduling.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
So if GC and GWS become powers in a relatively short time doesn't that mean that the Pies and Hawks are going to have at least some challengers in that conference? Your argument about the deficiencies in the Eastern Conference I proposed could easily be attributed to the Western Conference I proposed as well. That is, breaking them into future powers, middle ground and also rans. Yes there is one less elite side in the proposed Western Conference right now, but the AFL is so cyclical that could change in a year or two. You say so yourself with GC and GWS rising to prominence (albeit with concessions). As of today both of my proposed conferences have 4 teams in the top 8. Yes the proposed Eastern Conference have 3 of the bottom 4 sides (I'm counting GWS as 18th), but you are saying that within a couple of years 2 of those sides will be near the top. And re a Victorian conference and an interstate conference, as I said to Allen's comment below, I don’t hate it as from a rivalry standpoint it does make a lot of sense. And it could increase interest in State of Origin again (Vic vs the Rest maybe). But I think realistically we want to try and have a cross-section of teams for the overall promotion of the game.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
Fair enough. Either way we agree they should keep playing on that day.
Paul
Guest
Certainly, with the concessions the league gave GC & GWS, they both will become powers in relatively short time. Whether or not they are capable of challenging for a premiership within 5 years, as many have predicted, is debatable, I believe. However, those same concessions are also going to lengthen the time other sides will need to rebuild aging lists. Add in that the Pies and Hawks have fairly young lists and the stage is set for Collingwood, Hawthorn, Gold Coast & GWS to be the powers in the conference through this decade. The Saints & Swans would form a kind of middle ground, challenging to make finals and, occasionally, breaking through until age finally catches up with them. Melbourne, as always, would be a question mark. Brisbane will need years to rebuild and reinvent itself and the Tigers will, for a time, duplicate Melbourne, having the talent to squeak into the finals, but facing problems in doing so consistently. I like the idea of conferences or divisions, but find your initial plan a bit flawed. My own thought is to create 2 divisions based solely on location. Interstate Division: Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle, Geelong, Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney, Port Adelaide, Sydney, West Coast Victoria Division: Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, St. Kilda, Western Bulldogs The home-and-away could be played as you described. But for finals: Qualifying Final 1: ID1 v ID2 Qualifying Final 2: VD1 v VD2 Elimination Final 1: ID3 v ID4 Elimination Final 2: VD3 v VD4 Semi Final 1: Loser QF1 v Winner EF1 Semi Final 2: Loser QF2 v Winner EF2 Preliminary Final 1: Winner QF1 v Winner SF1 Preliminary Final 2: Winner QF2 v SF2 Grand Final This eliminates all arguments about favourable fixtures and the occasional complaints from Interstate members about the lack of finals matches interstate while not violating contracts with the MCG.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
I like it! Though getting back to your first post, if you added two more teams like you say would be called for, maybe 5 divisions of 4 teams would be better? That way you play each team in your division twice and everyone in the other divisions once. That way you get the magical 22 games that everyone is craving!
Black Diamonds
Guest
4 Divisions. 4 DIvisional champs go to finals, and then on the combined ladder. 4 best performed teams that are not divisional champs. That would allow, for instance, all 5 teams in one division to be in the finals - if they were really amongst the best 8 teams in the land.
JP
Guest
Only problem is you'll need to significantly subsidise the ROAFC (maybe add Geelong to the mix and make it ROAFC and MFC (Melbourne conference)), as they will be the ones paying a lot more for flights, away accommodation and the like. I prefer the original proposal (EFC vs SFC - east and south/west). Course, the other fix to the Melbourne substitute is find the worst financial club amongst the Melbourne lot, and move 'em to Tassie. North, perhaps?
JP
Guest
Matt F - the top 5 issue will always come up for either one top six team, or a whole bunch of lower level teams, if you play it intradivision x2 inter x1. (See also Super 15, which do this - the Aussies whinged that the Saders and Blues had three easy teams, the Saders and Blues whinged about the Force, Brumbies and Rebels AND the fact the Saffers had the Cheetahs and Lions.) The other alternative is 2x without, 1x within, but this obviously has to lengthen the season (you play a majority of teams twice vs. a minority). If this was association football, midweek fixtures are okay, but it isn't. What I would like to see brought back into Aussie sport (league/AFL/A-league etc.) is a midweek cup competition, extended beyond the elite league level - surely we can get NEAFL/VFL/SAFL (or equivalent) teams playing in some comp that at the end also adds in (possibly reserve heavy) AFL/NRL/A-league clubs.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I agree that it makes sense for them to keep it, and as a Melbourne supporter who wants to keep QB I'm not in much of a position to criticize, but I don't 'deserve' has anything to do with it. North Melbourne pioneered Friday nite footy, and they don't share in the spoils all that much anymore. There is no reason really why it should be taken away from Essendon & Collingwood, however not because they 'deserve' it.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
Well they say great minds think alike Mr Diamonds! True it provides more flexibility. And over a four year period it would provide a more equal draw (one of the aims of this exercise). And I would be all for more divisions, but I think it would make it even more confusing for punters. One ladder may be a better way to get a conference system in as people don't like too much change. However it would negate one of the positives that make a two conference system fairer - as each conference is a separate ladder then any ease of draw for that particular season is diminished by the fact that any teams playing a poor side twice, or good side twice for that matter, are only competing against each other for ladder position.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
I don't hate it. From a rivalry standpoint it does make a lot of sense. And it could increase interest in State of Origin again (Vic vs the Rest maybe). But I think realistically we want to try and have a cross-section of teams for the overall promotion of the game.
Lee McDonald
Roar Guru
Essendon and Collingwood, even if once a year, would always be on ANZAC day. They pioneered the game on that day and thus deserve to keep playing it. Possibly other matches will be in addition to Pies and Bombers as per what has started to occur the last couple of seasons.