With the AFL preseason competition kicking off this week, no doubt there will be plenty of talk around the bars of the nation regarding how the fixture could be fairer for all clubs.
Until every team plays equally home and away, the fixture will never be fair. But we all know this can never happen. So what is the solution?
With media rights at an all-time peak, the AFL would never think of reducing the amount of rounds. A fair system with 18 teams means either 17 or 34 rounds, but these numbers simply don’t work for any parties involved.
Introducing a conference system into the AFL would solve some of the many problems associated with the yearly fixturing, and would give all clubs an idea of who they play every year.
There would be no complicated American conference tables or wildcard playoffs. The conference system is merely a fixturing tool to establish a consistent draw for all clubs.
The 18 clubs would be broken into three sections of six. They would play home and away matches against the clubs in their section, while playing every other club once. This would maintain a 22-match fixture.
Derbies, Showdowns, Q clashes and the traditional Victorian clashes can still happen twice a year using the conferences below.
Conference A would include Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fremantle, Richmond, and West Coast.
Conference B gets Brisbane, Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney, North Melbourne, Sydney, Western Bulldogs.
And Conference C would have Adelaide, Geelong, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda.
Conference A is the AFL cash cow. It has matches with traditional Victorian rivals, mixed in with the Western Derby and the opportunity of the proposed Western Australia stadium to host sold-out crowds with the more popular Victorian clubs. The AFL would effectively use this conference to fund Conference B.
Conference B is the weakest among the supported groups, but this was the only way I could see two interstate rivalries happening. North Melbourne and Western Bulldog fans would be upset by their status, but this would help stabilise the future of both clubs.
The third conference has the teams that were left over, to be honest. But you would still have the traditional Showdown clash, the Waverley rivalry, and the two oldest clubs. Add the hottest rivalry of the last few years in Hawthorn and Geelong, and you have some great matches to look forward to twice a year.
Some may argue that it would give some sides an unfair advantage playing better clubs more often, but isn’t the distribution of advantage what the draft and salary cap are for? Some conferences would be stronger at times, but the finals system would not be affected by where sides finish in their conference.
The conference system is merely an idea to add to further intrigue to our great game. In no way do I want to see the game change dramatically as it has recently done with constant rule changes. This is just a fixturing tool to gain some consistency in years to come.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Putting aside that stadia wouldn't be available for 36 weeks, there is no way on earth the players would ever agree to it. Football is a more physical game than soccer, and the AFLPA would refuse to dramatically extend the season (I doubt they would agree to extend the season at all.)
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Sometimes it is actually alright to compare between codes folks...it doesn't actually have to fuel the code wars stuff. The NRL has a better finals system for mine, if what you're looking for is expanding the game. But if you want an FA CUP type finals system...what you get is a product with greater weighting, but maybe not so much promotion of expansion.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
But so is there between the Premier League and the Football League divisions ;) The difference being Australia is a smaller country and the VFL let the others die...it most certainly isn't a compromise between the State Leagues and some other truly Independent Commission...
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
You're setting the bar too low there Sheek. It isn't only about a fair draw...even though this article suggests (or presupposes that it is ;) ) For mine conferences should only be about determining rivalries, which require constancy over convenience...so if we're just going to have it for the draw's sake, rivalries are left in the hands of clubs like North Melbourne who have done a shite job at expanding the game... :P
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
But Sheek the NRL's proven that that's not always the case. Different codes of course, but by ruling out some teams...or setting the regular season bar so high I'd venture the expansion of the game is put in more jeopardy
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
I'd like to hear your reasons for that The Cattery? Seems to me that that would work best of all...as in most people happiest with it? They do it in Soccer...why not in a code which far out-polls it on our continent ;)
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah the above comments are quite off the mark. You see the problem with using seedings is that it is actually far more unfair than even the draft system which has bred tanking :P. It's so unfair because it denies the true appeal of Australian Football....as opposed to American Football, that it's an old vs new contest. In the NFL say, all teams are seen as officially equal, but not all have equal appeal. Teams like the Packers etc (even when they were losing) had mass-appeal. Why was that? Oh that's right because they are, like the Bears a very old team (and like the Bears trad a struggler apart from the glory years and recently) Many of the new teams have community's behind them, but they're prob not expanding the game...I can think of the Cowboys perhaps as an example of this. Teams in a code which is fighting for bottom dollar need to be able to utilise the natural animosity between old and new which may lead to a Sydney Swans or an Oakland Raiders type of manoeuvre By putting the old and new together you end up without much of the electricity...oh and also you're not drawing in enough money to make it work!!!
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Actually one thing I do like about this Conference approach is that like any proper conference the teams remain the same year in and year out. So many suggestions go against this most basic of Sporting ideals...usually because of politics. Also I like the idea of using Conference A as like a tool for allowing development in the other two conferences...again like the NCAA model ;)
Blazza
Guest
@ sheek its seems like a good system if the AFL decide to go with it. They just need to find away to make the teams happy with equal and fair conferences. What might be good in 2012 might not be good in 2025. But its a great way to start rivalries or continue rivalries. I wasn't comparing AFL/NRL to the US sports and how they do there conferences, i was just saying i like the idea of conference finals and then the main championship game.
sheek
Guest
Blazza, The whole idea of the conferences is merely to accommodate an ideal season of 22 matches. Some guys are sweating about having separate ladders. Totally unnecessary. With 3 conferences, you're only asking each team to play a second game against one-third of the comp - 5 out of 17. That's after everyone's played each other once already. Mathematically, this is how it works out. 12 teams - one conference (of course, play each other twice) of 22 home & away matches (11 + 11 = 22). 16 teams - two conferences of 8 teams, after everyone plays each other once (15 + 7 = 22). 18 teams - three conferences of 6 teams, after everyone plays each other once (17 + 5 = 22). Whether it's two or 3 conferences, the final 8 will be the best 8 performed teams, irrespective of which conference they're in. You can't even begin to compare it with the NFL, which has 32 teams divided into two conferences, each conference further divided into 4 zones, with multiple cross-overs all over the place. It's an entirely different set-up.
Blazza
Guest
I was looking towards the 2 conferences over the 3 . If the AFL want conferences and wants to keep 22 games per team and having 3 works better than 2 i'm fine with that. My opinion on 2 conferences which i enjoy more than 3 conferences is just in preference of how the system works in the US. That being said I don't expect AFL changing there system to accommodate having it set up that way. Having 3 conferences but 1 ladder 1-18 top 8 makes finals, instead of 2 conferences 1-8,1-8 and top 4 make their conferences semis. Does having 3 conference change the finals set up at all ?
sheek
Guest
Lachlan, Are you simply being contrary for the sake of it? Australia is not England. How would promotion & relegation be both original & equal? There simply aren't enough clubs that could sustain themselves in a national comp. Nor is the comp designed for promotion/relegation. There is a clear delineation structure between the AFL at the apex of the pyramid, & the various state leagues - VFL, SANFL, WAFL, QFL, SFL, TSFL, ACTFL, NTFL - below this.
sheek
Guest
Blazza, That's fine, except two conferences requires 25-26 home & away regular season matches (17 + 8 or 9 = 25/26). You might have to have a bye round as well, since two conferences x 9 requires a bye each week. Three conferences requires 22 home & away regular season matches (17 + 5 = 22). That's also considering pre-season & post-season finals matches on top of that. So you're saying its okay to have a 25-26 home & away regular season? On top of pre-season & post-season matches as well/?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
How is that original?
woodsman
Guest
We're fine as we are until we hit more than 25 teams, 24 rounds. Not an issue we'll face in the next 50 years.
BRian
Guest
Too much lost dosh for Demitriou to be interested. Collingwood, Geelong & Hawthorn to only play each other once. The AFL don't go for such things. Also GWS, GC & Power only play each other once, all this increases the chances of blowouts. Is there really a need for Geelong to thrash GWS twice.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
agreed we're a long way from 20 teams. We'll get a relocation first.
LachieAHV
Guest
Collingwood went boonta to stop Port being black and white and the magpies, what's gonna happen if Port Magpies or Devonport qualified. What about if Glenelg, Hobart and Claremont all qualified, their would be 4 Tigers in the league. But the bigger issue with this idea is where are the state based clubs going to get players from? They would lose by 20 goals every week. People whinged last year about boring blow outs with port and GC, how is it gonna be with 5 rubbish teams?
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
I agree with you - as long as there is a separate ladder for each conference. Say top 2 from each qualify for finals and 2 wildcards. If there was one ladder it's no fairer than the current system.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Because 22 rounds is just about the perfect H&A season, for a numbrer of reasons. If you have 3 conferences, and play each team in your own conference and the other teams once, that comes to exactly 22 rounds. If you split up the conferences such that each is relatively even, based on the previous year's finish, then you end up with just about the fairest draws possible if you want to squeeze 18 teams into 22 rounds.