Three conferences would give AFL the boost it needs

Two leagues of 10 each, later expand to two of twelve in time. 18 rounds in the league. Clubs in the league determined by previous seasons performance. Finals as per the current system, only top four clubs in each league enter finals. to compare the current finals to the new it works like this; 1st----------1st of League 1 2nd---------1st of League 2 3rd---------2nd of League 1 4th---------2nd of League 2 and so forth, with the two qualification finals in round 1 being Lg 1 winner vs Lg 2 second place, and the the same for the two elimination matches. Far better system than the current. Does not prevent tanking, however as the leagues have only 10 clubs there is more chance of lower clubs climbing the ladder. If a drop to eighteen rounds is bad then make the first round of finals the best of three for each of the four matches.

Good point but if the Eagles have a huge home ground advantage then on the flip-side they must also have a huge away disadvantage. Let's call it even on the home crowd point. The main difference between what the Eagles & the Vic based teams go through is that the Eagles fly 6,000kms every single fortnight of the year which means they are significantly more disadvantaged IMO. Their recovery is delayed and their sleep is interrupted eg. the Dockers got back to Perth at 3am WST (5am EST) after playing the Saints last Friday. Also, the GF is always played at G.

I agree that ultimately it is a compromised fixture unless you play each team an even number of times. Ideally you would reduce the Victorian sides to accommodate this - though good luck in peacefully nominating which teams should opt out. As much as their are broke teams currently in Victoria, they could rightfully argue that the financial support going to new franchises could easily be afforded to them eg Melbourne; a founding team of the league. This will only happen at the AFL's discretion, so while the league continues to drip feed clubs there will always be a fear amongst the lower ranked, unfinancial clubs. This is part of the reason why the current model is unsustainable and supports what someone else mentioned earlier: if these struggling teams are continually denied blockbusters, the fixtures and schedules written in favour of other teams, what chance do they really have to improve their situation? The 1996 merger between Hawthorn and Melbourne failed only because it was seen more as a takeover; the Melbourne Hawks would have remembered Hawthorn the same way the Brisbane Lions remembers Fitzroy. Hawthorn were able to find financial supporters and quickly opposed the arrangement. They have since become a strong club on and off field. The Melbourne history and brand will continue to save it from being acquired, however the same cannot be said for some other teams. I suspect the season you propose would be too gruelling for fans. Equally, I suspect playing each team only once denies the league of five games - the AFL would not approve it and the broadcasters and fans moreso. If we are able to reduce the overall number of teams in the league and increase the number of rounds we can accommodate an even fixture. The conference system is suggested based on the premise we accommodate the existing number of teams and rounds.

Good points. I agree that the competition has continually seen adaptation to ensure clubs have mnore even opportunity to compete for the premiership. Many strategies like the eradication of zones and the introduction of the draft system, the salary cap, priority picks and concessions etc all promote this to ensure we do not endure dominance form one club. Indeed, the league arguably goes too far at times to the extent they change rules that they believe a team exploits. Two points are supported by your statement: 1. The AFL does pursue healthy competition as ultimately it is that which will attract the fans and sustain the dominance of the league overall as the nation's premier sport 2. That this pursuit of equality needs to continue I am concerned that the list of clubs has grown to a point it becomes very difficult to reach a premiership window and as you illustrated, you may not always seize your opportunity; St Kilda have been dominant for a decade and have only failed Grand Finals to their name. The Western Bulldogs failed in three preliminary finals and are an even more compelling case. For a club that does not pay their full salary cap to enter their 'window', identify a weakness and look to attract the required players, they saw it was extremely difficult and their recruitments were ultimately unsuccessful. Collingwood on the other hand, which is already a powerhouse, was in a similar position, identified and successfully addressed their weaknesses and won a premiership. These inequalities will not be completely elminated by a conference system. They will promote a fairer, purer league where teams compete at their standard rather than at the convenience of the ultimate financial interests of the league. It will avoid financial teams like West Coast protecting their list and thus creating opportunities. It may not be the blanket answer but it is worth consideration to preserve this great game which advocates equality.

I do like this to an extent. It still has the inherit problems that exist with the current fixture; that derbies will remian untouched and that the fixture will be manipulated to accommodate the 'powerhouse' clubs. This is already happening, so I see no reason to move to a conference system - if only for the home and away season - to replicate what already exists. The idea should be to promote teams more evenly. It is an opportunity to ensure teams compete against teams of similar standard; minimising mismatches throughout the year and building rivalry which in turn builds interest, fans and supports the financial growth and security of the club.

They also have a huge advantage at their home ground whic enables them to get into finals - and indeed secure top four last year - so the weakness can also be their strength.

Impossibility is too strong a term. It is possible - we just need to be creative. And patient. If clubs were equally strong and financial, the AFL would not be as committed to scheduling the blockbusters, as most games would be stadium sellouts and attract public interest. The poor clubs are perpetually disadvantaged; it is accepted now as they are not under threat. The poor clubs know however that by accepting it, they are vulnerable to consecutive poor seasons, some financial troubles and perhaps the scrutiny of the AFL which may decide to expand to, say Tasmania. Fitzroy fans will tell you your fate if you are struggling to win games and balance the books when that day comes. Ironically, this is avoidable if the league invests into long term sustainability for the clubs and the competition. It would compromise short-term profit and it may be years before the benefits are realised, so it requires the courage of an administration to look beyond their tenure.

Unlikely that coaches would complain about playing perceived good teams - it would show a lack of confidence in their own team, would it not? Especially at this end of the year with memberships a focus, the talk must be positive. Even then, I doubt too many will blame the fixture; compromised as it is, football departments know it cannot be an excuse. We may have had 25 years of a compromised fixture - I don't see this as justification for one. We had several years to get used to priority picks yet the system was reviewed and deemed faulty. Zones is another system that was considered outdated. We have had years to get used to the match review panel, yet we criticise it weekly. Time cannot be a justification, particularly with such significant evolution like the addition of two new franchises. As you rightly point out, the league has done it anyway. They have ensured that the 'weaker teams' play GWS and Gold Coast twice, the stronger teams play each other twice etc. Does this not indicate that at AFL HQ there is already a 'conference-like' thinking, where the fixture is structured based on expected performance? Is this not masking the issue? Is this not a controlled conference system which the AFL can manipulate based on their interests? I agree that the best teams tend to make it to the business end of the season. To develop into the best team you need to be competitive, just as you need the competition itself to be even. Currently it is not and we should not accept it as rule.

True - it does prevent the rebounds of teams within a season, such as the examples you have provided. Although, neither of your examples were Grand Finalists. Additionally, these sides enjoyed the current compromised draft, which would be less so under a conference system. As remarkable as West Coast's recovery was, most people agreed their list was better than 15th in 2010. If the conference system was in place in 2010, chances are West Coast would have ensured they finished a shade higher to ensure they were still eligible for finals. Perhaps they would not have sent their players to surgery so quickly and instead tried to win rather than simply 'trying players and testing the list'. Also, in contrast to West Coast, Essendon certainly made the finals with an outright eigth and was embarrassed by 16 goals - an indication they were perhaps premature, perhaps a beneficiary of a good draw or some lucky wins. They suffered accordingly the following year. The conference system would promote more measured growth and a purer finals. Still, I do take your point that a team could genuinely recover from say 13th and be worthy of finals the following year, yet the conference system I have suggested could deny them. A modification to compromise: the top two Conference C teams could play the fourth team from Conference A & B in a 'pre-finals' round to determine the final eight. Thoughts?

While we continue to accommodate these types of games, we continually imbalance the competition in too many ways. The derbies are rarely evenly matched thus they guarantee two wins for the stronger team eg Sydney vs GWS for perhaps the next three years. This is an enormous advantage for a team battling with others for a top four spot, or with clubs like North Melbourne who are trying to make the eight, yet have no 'gimme derby' to rely on for easy wins. Surely you are not suggesting the integrity of the competition is worth sacrificing for the sake of short-term derby gratification? The argument supporting 'grapples' is that eventually the strength of the teams will be more even and competition in each state will be fierce and interesting. Though this may eventuate, it still disadvantages too many teams including Victorian teams who have no true derby opponent for rivalry round (think the weak Bulldogs vs Tigers because of a bitter clash between Liberatore and Knights years ago, or Geelong vs the Western Bulldogs because their mascots are natural enemies). Not only is it rare for a bottom six team to race into the finals the following year - and make an impact - but it is only encouraged when said bottom six team does this as a deliberate strategy. The conference system is actually strengthened by this point; teams with obvious ability and bad luck with injury like West Coast in 2010 will not receive high draft picks to support their immediate rebound to finals when their players return in 2011. Instead, if they want to play finals in 2011, they have to ensure they stay in 'Conference B' - thus extending their list fairly and rightfully to the end of the season. Don't forget - we can have fierce rivalry without sharing a state with the team eg West Coast & Sydney.

Some side notes to the points that I've just raised IE we've already established that West Coast & Geelong are the two most successful teams in AFL hisotry - but what do they have in common? 1) Brian Cook (CEO of West Coast & Geelong) - he lead West Coast through their 1992 & 1994 Premierships Campaigns - he then took the helm at Geelong only to find out they were a basket case and then he went on lead them to 3 flags, is that a co-incidence? I think not? 2) Remoteness - both teams are remote from the epicentre of AFL and lucky for them that they are. West Coast are nearly 3,000km's away and Geelong 75km's away. Melbourne is simultaneously an intoxicating and toxic environment to live and play AFL in. Sydney players would also agree with that one. The Constant John Worsfold is the only constant figurehead in West Coast's entire 25 year history. When he played footy he was known as the smiling assassin and nothing has changed. He's always been a ferocious and fair competitor and he's still cutting up teams, ripping them to shreds and giving nothing away to outsiders or the media. He's a master and a true leader of men and his teams have always played for him. He has been captain or coach in every West Coast premiership and he's going to be their coach for another 10-20 years. That isn't a co-incidence either! John Worsfold & Brian Cook are the two most important figures in West Coast's history and I'm now convinced that West Coast is the most successful club in AFL history. It comes down to leadership and culture and it baffles me that me some teams still can't achieve the ultimate prize (or even Top 8) after such long histories in the precursor comp, the VFL. Melbourne is a toxic footy environment for most teams and a few teams need to be cut. Survival of the fittest I say!.

The reason that no team has won 4 or more flags in succession in 82 years of footy is because the Grand Final IE the ultimate winner that year is decided in a play-off game. It's one game, played on one day in Sept which means any team can win it, as long as they can make it that far of course. The McLelland Trophy is awarded to the team that finishes 1st at the end of the home and away season. Since the introduction of the national comp in 1987 Essendon has won the McClelland Trophy 5 times for just 1 flag with West Coast, Geelong & Port each winning the McLelland 3 times with only West Coast & Geelong having won each award in the same period. Collingwood and St Kilda have each won it twice. Interestingly, Hawthorn (much like Essendon) has only won one (1) McLelland Trophy since 1987 but they head the Premiership list in this time with 4 Flags (3 of them between 87-91 mind you and 2008 was lucky). West Coast, Brisbane & Geelong are the next best performed Premiership Teams having each won 3 flags in this time. Only West Coast & Geelong are ranked within the Top 2 on both of these lists (Minor Premiers & Premiers). So statistically, West Coast & Geelong are the two best teams in the history of the AFL. You're correct on most points Bazza but I don't agree that Judd is the best player, Ablett is the best player and by quite some margin, he's in a league of his own to be honest. I'm also not convinced that the Hawks & Carlton are outright favourites for the flag this year. West Coast & to a lesser extent Geelong are ahead of both of these teams and the stats and history I've just outlined suggest that I'm right! I think it's West Coast's year to be honest! It would take a brave man to bet against West Coast, Geelong, Carlton & Hawthorn not finishing Top 4 this year, the rest of it comes down to a roll of the dice on the day as you've just stated. This all contributes to making AFL the best game in the world and that's why it's extremely difficult for any one team (along with the draft and salary cap) to dominate the comp for an extended period of time. Any team can win it, just like any team can win the FA Cup Final 9that's the magic and romance) and that's what makes it so unique and intriguing and that's what makes the success of West Coast & Geelong all that much more special. Drop rugby and come and join us here in the AFL, we'd love to have you with us!

I agree GrantS

1) Cut 2 Vic teams and lock in 8 self-sustaining Vic teams - at least 2 teams are broke anyway 2) Drop the NAB Cup - it's 4 weeks of nothing and 2 weeks after it ends before the real season starts - this gets you 6 weeks back for real games 3) Introduce a 16 team comp with a Top 6 - 50% of teams shouldn't be playing in finals 4) Each team plays each other twice in a genuine home and away 32 week comp + finals 5) Vic teams will still only need to travel 8 times out of 32 weeks which is more than they do now but still not enough to make it a fair comp. I'm prepared to compromise on that one 6) So the 2 teams that play in the GF get 13 weeks off. They can give the players 8 weeks break (same as they get now) and they can do a shorter 5 week pre-season. Teams that didn't make the finals get 21 weeks break to use as they please 7) Or if you think that season is too long you can cut it down by dropping 3 Vic teams which makes the season 2 weeks shorter. Then we'd have a 15 team comp with every team getting one bye per season. 8) Each team gets to add 3-4 more players to their list. This is so that they can manage their list throughout the extended/longer season and it will keep the better players that got cut in the system and in full-time employment. This system is by far the best and fairest model that I've seen so far and I love it. Best of all, the comp will be of a higher standard due to the consolidation of teams and players and we'll get to see more footy every single year. Any takers on this concept? Let me know! I'm only interested in ideas whereby each team plays each other either once per year (one year home and one year away). Or whereby they play each other twice per year. Any other model means it's a compromised system and that's not good for anyone, except the Vic teams of course!

Aren't the Rugby League players from NSW called cockroaches ? So we could have the Bug Bash or the Roach Wrestle.

It could be done quite easily! Simply scrub the NAB cup and, bingo, you have plenty of time to play the extra games. This would be a far fairer method than the present system.

Try flying 6,000 km's return once a fortnight and living with all of the disruption that brings to recovery, sleep, family etc before making the comment that 'the team best equipped to win the premiership will make it the pointy end of the season come what may'. West Coast looked tired in last years finals series and flying to Melb to take on Geelong after the Blues match at Subi was a huge ask. I rate the flags won by any interstate team significantly higher in value than the flags won by Vic team, it's definitely much harder to win it and the teams most affected are the Eagles & Dockers which makes the Eagles record over 25 years that much more impressive. I'd reckon they would have won at least 1 and possibly 2 more flags if they were based in Vic during this time. The Cats may now have only 1-2 flags from their current run if they were based in WA.

By the way, it was sheer fluke that all four of Coll, Carl, Ess and Rich could be squeezed into one conference, that wouldn't happen every season, but where it could be accommodated, in terms of the integrity of relatively equal points, you would do it.

mds' idea is still the very best I've seen, but once again, we are using the word "conference" loosely, it is purely for the purpose of drawing up a reasonably fair fixture (squeezing 18 teams into 22 rounds) - in no way would we ever advocate actually doing up conference ladders, for arguments sake. I believe such a proposal couldn't be put into full effect until GWS and the Suns settled down into a normal pattern, which might be only a couple of years away. For the moment, I'm comfortable that mostly lesser teams are getting to play them twice while maintaining the primacy of derbies, which are simply non-negotiable.

Thanks Guys, I love the history & tradition of Aussie sports, & I have to say, Australian football is right up there with cricket & horse racing. And those 3 way ahead of everything else.....