The AFL has always had years where one or two weak teams have copped weekly hammerings. Beatings so bad that you wondered how they would ever recover.
St Kilda, for example, in the pre-AFL days of the 80s, went through several lean years, one year losing three games in a row by over 100 points.
With the introduction of a second new team in two years, the AFL this season has created a two-headed monster in regard to lopsided uncompetitive matches, casting doubts over the wisdom of the process that enabled both teams to build their lists.
The Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney Giants are no more than under-21 teams sprinkled with experienced players. For the Giants that means experienced players such as 7-gamer Phil Davis, or main man Tom Scully, who played just 31 games with Melbourne.
Compare these teams with American sporting teams. Americans would have said the AFL have no idea what they’re doing. They would ask what the hell were you thinking creating a new professional franchise made up of college freshmen!
First year college players are being asked to compete against hardened players. Taking this year’s best high school basketballers or footballers and asking them to compete in the NBA or NFL next year would be crazy.
Everyone was aware that both teams would struggle in their first few years, but the extent of the way the whole competition is now compromised is only just starting to hit.
With the number of teams expanded to 18, teams play only five teams twice. Collingwood for example play five of last year’s finalists twice, where many other teams play only one of last year’s finalists twice.
Adelaide and North Melbourne are the only teams lucky enough to play the Suns and Giants twice, in what come finals time could be a huge advantage.
Not only could it result in more wins but also a boost for percentage. Teams could also take advantage by resting players against the new teams.
What effect will this have on the Suns and Giants players? Could it leave them scarred? Sure, some say it may actually make them better in the long run, but is it fair when the average career of an average AFL player might be six or seven years to ask these youngsters to spend two, or three, or four, or five of those years in such inexperienced teams?
Yes, currently for every kid who’s drafted very high it usually means they go to a weak team and have to endure a couple of years at a struggling club (unless you’re Joel Selwood). But this is different. It’s unfair that they go to a team full of teenagers.
Also with free agency commencing other teams have a better opportunity to remain more competitive, especially if the new teams struggle to lure free agents. Would free agents go to a team that is regularly thrashed each week?
With 18 teams and with the game facing a year where there may be more blowouts than ever, it’s time for the AFL to reconsider splitting the competition into conferences.
Maybe we could use conferences just for the next two to three years while the ridiculously inexperienced Suns and Giants come up to scratch.
It has been discussed in the past and the AFL have asked for ideas on how conferences or divisions may work. The AFL has so far resisted due to concerns regarding restrictions on the draw and finding an equitable way to split the teams.
My suggestion would keep certain rivalries intact and provide a way to make the draw fairer.
The simplest way would be to split the league into two nine-team conferences or three six-team conferences.
Unlike American conferences, the make-up of the conference teams would change every year based on previous season positions. The AFL could keep interstate rivalries going by putting those teams in the same conference.
Some rivalries could do with a slight shake up. For example, do Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood really have to face each other twice a year, every year?
Conference rivals play each other twice a year and other conference teams once. Most importantly, this way your ladder position in the conference is compared only with teams that had the exact same draw.
Head-to-head record would decide how teams on equal points are split. If that failed to split them then percentage would determine the highest-ranked team.
Importantly it would ensure every team would play the new teams the same number of times.
It may sound a tad radical but the rules to help build the new franchises were probably the most unfair since the AFL started. Certainly more unfair than the Eagles and Crows faced and even more unfair than the Brisbane Bears endured.
Long term the upside for the Suns and Giants is that the move may pay off, but as Melbourne has shown, high picks in the draft are no guarantee of success. Especially with free agency also clouding the picture.
The AFL’s mistake in setting up the new franchises will result in a few years of distorted and uncompetitive results. A temporary solution to help offset that distortion is required.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yes but there is a contrived but reasonable geographical (with the freakish exception of Dallas Cowboys in the East for peep's sake!) relationship in Super 15...in the NFL and especially in the AFL. The problem seems to come down to those who don't want to see their team to miss out in playing the teams in hot-form at that particular point in the league. You always get it...every year. But how is having a Victoria vs Not Victoria so hard to drum up. Why should the city which is in the centre of the code be forced to give away its advantage, so the travel factor is mitigated? It may not be fair in some people's eyes, but having the Sydney teams playing the Perth-based teams for example gives the home team more of an advantage. This is good for both teams in the longer run, just not at the same time in the same season...but it gives them a relative advantage over teams with strategic value. Of course you could always have an ANZ Championship style 'conference weeks' to start and end the season. I certainly wasn't advocating a situation when the winner of each conference could only ever meet in the Grand Final. That is too American.
Lou Lando
Roar Guru
It's all about fairness. I actually think there are more flaws in U.S system of permanent divisions/ conferences. Some years you get ridiculously one sided divisions. Or as in the MLB the poor Baltimore Orioles, Toronto, Tampa have to compete against the big spending Yankees and Red Sox every year. Changing the teams around could also lead to same problem. But the main benefit is that you're basing it on recent year's performance. By playing the other teams in your div twice on a home and away basis and then having a ladder that compares teams with exactly the same draw is far fairer than the present system.
Nanjinger
Guest
Not one we get to 24 teams.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I agree, it works very well. But the reason it works well in Super 15 is precisely why it won't work in the AFL where you have 9 teams ringing the Melbourne CBD, plus another 75km down the road, you have 4 teams West of Victoria and another 4 teams North of the Murray, which ever way you dice it up, it's a contrivance and in no way does anything to overcome the present uneven draw (which is not actually a problem anyway, let us not forget, in the Super 15, some teams don't play each other during the season, in the AFL everyone plays each other at least once).
drama city
Guest
Super 15 rugby has a conference system. I think it works well.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Because people want to use something that works in the US, with 40 cities with a population of over 1 million spread right across the country, and overlay that on the AFL and Australia, and it's a nonsense.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
This topic always tickles me...always! I love the idea, I really do...but not what most of you seem to want. That is 'conferences' which change each year depending on 'performance' etc. What's the point....really, of doing something so lukewarm? And what's so wrong with having a conference in which you play the same teams twice each year? Is it the potential boringness of playing the same teams in the same regime every single year? At the moment you've got a whole lot of variety, but also a whole lot of disagreement, nothing'll change either way. What it's about for most of us is (when it comes right down to it) is fairness. And the current luck-based system is no more fair than the dole...no one gets any better, but no one can be blamed for things becoming more unfair, unequal, unreasonable...
Jaceman
Guest
Would all those Collingwood fans (insert your least favourite team here) like Carlton (your favourite team here) to play GWS or GC twice - I dont think so besides Collingwood seem immune from travelling interstate so they cant play GC/GWS twice.
Lachlan
Roar Guru
im going to keep my comment short and sharp. The AFL needs to even out the draw. It's either Divsions/conferences or promotion relegation. or its create more teams, say 25 and every team plays everyone once. personally the first one looks a lot more realistic in this era. Explain how one would work?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I don't mind a conference system as long as we keep the overall ladder and the final 8 is not divided by conferences. I certainly don't want anything like the NBA system.
ManInBlack
Guest
The reality of both Suns and Giants is that they deliberately went young - mainly by virtue of their trading. They actually traded for more early draft picks. I'd assumed that the large number of early draft picks would equate to 'currency' for them to trade for established players that they might not have been able to attract otherwise. But that didn't happen.
ManInBlack
Guest
North continually have been given way too many home games against the interstate sides - which hits hard at the gate when playing at Etihad - - so, we get a season like this and people get up in arms? Reality is - we'd love to get H&A v Carl, Ess, Coll etc......and get back to even a couple of Friday nights...... but, correct, the AFL know what they're doing in buring a team like North. So, if we can this one year turn that into a few soft wins and percentage boosters then I figure it's some little comfort!! (because, if we aren't good enough, and we do make the finals - then we'll be exposed there).
MHTID
Guest
So we all agree, the draw is flawed. That's life, get on with it.
Mitch Brown
Guest
I don't have a problem with Adelaide and North Melbourne playing GWS and GCS twice. Would you rather have mediocre teams who are unlikely to have an impact on September, such as these, or better quality teams such as Collingwood, Hawthorn or Carlton getting hand-out wins with multiple games against the weaker teams? The way our fixture is structured means that there are going to be teams that get easier runs than others. But it would be better to see these unfortunate hand-out wins having little to no effect on the finals (which is much more likely when given to teams such as North Mebourne). Yes, maybe Adelaide should only get multiple games against one of the expansion teams. But if you make them play GCS twice and GWS once, knowing the way the AFL likes to write their fixtures, the two GWS hand-outs could end up with Sydney or a more skilled side like them.
Jaceman
Guest
They knew exactly what they were doing!!!
Jaceman
Guest
Victorian teams cant play away in the first 2 weeks and/or share more fruitfully with Etihad, tassie and Darwin (wet season?)?
thesportsguy
Guest
the conference system in america is set up only due to the extensive amount of travel they would otherwise have to do. the states is basically the same size as australia, and to minimise the west v east trips, a team would embark on a 2 week journey where they play 6-8 games on the road. the conference system in super15 is a mini version of this. NZ teams doing south african trips and vis versa are away 2-3 weeks. I cant see it being applied to AFL. Its totally meaningless , and you actually penalise an interstate team (say WA or freo) or are away constantly dueling in QLD, SA, or NSW. the vic teams would get a HUGE edge as they all play in similar areanas.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
I never want divisions, never. It may however be the only way to get a fair and equitable draw if theres further teams added,
The Cattery
Roar Guru
hawker fair enough comment, but at the end of the day, Adelaide and NM are unlikely to break into the top 5, and if they do, good luck to them!
The Cattery
Roar Guru
There would have to be more shrinks working for GWS and GC than you'd find in the whole of the LA metropolitan area.