A conference system won't provide AFL equality

I still cant see that regionalisation makes the whole competition more 'fair'. People would then complain that their team is not in the region where the easy-beats are- so will perpetually miss playing them twice rather than sucking it up for a single season. Imagine if this year had a 'Northern Conference' with Sydney lapping it up in a pool of GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast.. How fair would that be?

No the point is that you would have a fairer draw over the year against your co-conference opponents because you would get a fair chance to play them all home and away and they have that vice-versa and everyone would get a single chance to play the other teams. The only unfairness that then remains is whether it was home or away, a hell of a lot fairer than being denied the four easy points against GWS. It's not ideal, but it is somewhat fairer.

Exactly. I do foresee the day when the AFL must go to conference style, simply because the league does want to continue to expand. Perhaps when New Zealand gets a team and one of the Vic teams moves to Tassie, we'll see a conference arrangement. It wouldn't surprise me for the league to have a third Sydney team along with teams in NZ and Tassie in ten years. Then, more teams would be outside Vic than inside and a conference system would make sense.

Either the AFL makes it a full double round robin competition, where each teams plays each other twice, home and away. Or make it like each team plays each other once only, with alternate home and away fixtures ever year. So that if Brisbane play Collingwood at the MCG one year the next its at the Gabba.

What about when the East was tops with Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Indiana, New York all being better than the West who had the Lakers and Utah.

Finally we get to the best solution if 'fairness' is what you want. Just be patient and expand the comp until they play each other once.

What would be the point? The only argument for conferences that I can see is making the travel more 'equal'.

'So be it' for no chance of a major rivalry being in the Grand Final!? Conferences would be the death of the game.

I refer you to the Columbus Blue Jackets. Perennially bad teams due to mismanagement. However, astute trades and careful free agent signings brought them a season, this year, wherein they missed the play-offs due to a tie breaker. I refer you to the Oakland A's. A combination of astute trades and free agent signings brought them a division winning team, last year, and a very competitive team, this year. I could cite many more examples. The errors of management, when it comes to trades and free agent signings, is that they try to "hit a home run". That is, they think that trading for, or signing, a superstar will cure their ills. However, it is trading for, or signing, the right players - sometimes role players, sometimes stars, sometimes players on the brink of becoming stars or simply good starters - which brings winning seasons. Drafting well, alone, does not guarantee success. It is a combination of good drafting, astute trades and select free agent signings which brings continued success. None of which has one bloody thing to do with whether or not the sport plays in a conference style set up or not. Again, teams which are well coached and well managed by the front office will always be successful, long term. Which completely explains teams like the Atlanta Falcons, Kansas City Royals, etc.

It is SIMPLE the AFL needs to let every team play each other only once (due to the long cricket season that erodes stadium access and the AFL's unwillingness to schedule mid week fixtures/ scrap the preseason carnival this makes a fair system of playing ever team once home and once away impossible). The team that played away in the 1st season this style of fixture is implemented then plays the same team at home in the 2nd. For Example Carlton played Essendon at home in season 1, so in season 2 Essendon has a home game when they play Carlton. The AFL can still keep its blockbuster matches like the local derbies in the outer states, the AFL will just have to alternate the home and away teams like they do with Collingwood and Essendon on Anzac Day. Have Victorian clubs travel to each AFL outer state once a season to play one of the franchises located in that state. So for example North would travel in the 1st season to play the Suns on the Gold Coast, the Swans in Sydney, the Crows in Adelaide and the Eagles in Perth, then in the same season play the Lions, GWS, Port Adelaide and the Dockers at home (or Tassie for GWS & Port). Then in season 2 the AFL reverses the fixture so North travels to face the Lions, GWS, Port Adelaide and the Dockers and plays the Suns, the Swans, the Crows and the Eagles at home/Tassie. Until a fixture like this where every one play each other once or an EPL style season of playing every team twice is implemented the AFL fixture will always be and should be criticized for being systematically bias. Viva

Two divisions would not work because as Timmuh said Australians will not support a second tier competition. I am guessing but am pretty sure the SANFL and WAFL crowds are nowhere near what they were before the AFL came to town. A coference system would not work either because of the imbalance between the number of teams in the West 4, the North 4 and the South 10. Expansion to 20 team will happen, but not for at least 10 years. Playing each team once with each team having three byes during the season would work but until then we are stuck with the compromised draw.

Matt F, I fully acknowledge that it is impossible to have an equal draw, unless every team plays every other team H&A. It is impossible so why pretend that a single competition correctly reflects team standings, a conference system acknowledges this impossibility and instead plays 3 parallel competitions where it team in each competition has an equal chance of making the finals. The only sustainable argument against a conference system is the, once again, unavoidable discrepancy between conference but under the current structure every team has its own playing schedule that is a different strength to every other teams schedule, therefore, a conference is inherently an improvement on the current system. The best response to the criticism of differing strength conferences is, does a team the finished lower than 3rd in a 6 team conference really deserve a place in the finals, even if a 'weaker' team from another conference has made the finals?

I doubt the AFL would ever go down to a 17 game season as they couldn't sell the TV rights for as much as they do now. There are pros and cons with both. As another commentator said, a 17 game season has problems in that the bulk of the teams are located in one state which means some teams may have to travel more than others before any other aspects of the draw are worked out and a 34 week season may also draw the ire of some fans who think a 22 game season is long enough already. I think it comes down to this, if you really want an even draw, then you have to go to a home and away season where everyone plays each other twice and accept all that comes with it including longer dead time for teams that are out of finals contention. If extending the AFL season by 3 months isn't acceptable and we stick with the 22 game season, we need to accept the fact that no amount of tinkering and adjusting will ever even it out.

That doesn't rectify the lack of equality for all teams at the start of each season. Remember the premiership is decided each year, not every 2 years or 3 so telling a team that they'll get a better draw next year to make up for the crappy one they received this year is useless.

The writer completely overlooked the NHL play-offs. Why? Simple. The NHL has only 1 week division, the Southeast and, even there, the division winner has, with only a couple exceptions, always had a winning record. Otherwise, making the play-offs in the NHL does require a winning record and, especially in the Western Conference where teams are spread over two-thirds of the country, stamina. And before anyone makes note of the Southeast Division's weaknesses, note that the NHL is realigning to more geographical conferences next season. Instead of six divisions, there will be four conferences, making it even harder to reach the play-offs. Also, let me note that, being a Yank, I've been living with divisional & conference play in sports since baseball went divisional in 1969. Yes, you can note exceptions, but the simple fact is that, as a general rule, the best teams are the ones repeatedly successful. Note such powerhouses as the Detroit Red Wings, New York Yankees, Oakland A's, et al. Long term success is attained by proper drafting, astute trading and intelligent free agent signings. Also, the argument about the Cleveland Browns never playing in the Super Bowl is flawed. The original Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Two years after doing so, they won the Super Bowl. The expansion team granted the city of Cleveland took the traditional name. Mr. Chan, I strongly suggest that you do some real study about American sports if you intend to use them as an example when writing about Australian sports. Quite frankly, I could do an entire column simply pointing out the flaws in your column, mostly concerning the teams you cite as examples for why a conference system doesn't work. Every team you cited has had a history of poor trades, poor drafting, poor free agent signings, bad coaching, poor front office management or some combination of all these. Regardless of the sport and whether or not that sport has a conference system, these failures are responsible for long term poor results. Just ask the Chicago Cubs, who haven't won a World Series since 1912, long before any sport had conference play.

sponsors and tv follow the top division, the relegated will be second class. Drop Collingwood and Essendon down a tier for a season and the premier AFL division would have its lowest crowds and tv ratings. It would be awesome wouldnt it.

I know. That wasn't my point. Your draw is no more equal than Redb's is. If the top 4 in a particular year are GWS, Sydney, Adelaide and Port then C3 is going to be much more difficult than the other conferences. Your draw does very little to solve the unequal part of a draw as there is no guarantee that teams in one geographical area are equal with the teams in another. Basing it on last years ladder is not perfect but it is a re accurate way to judge the strength of teams than a geographical conference system. My issue with WA and QLD was not about travel but about the quality of teams from those states. Right now the two WA teams are much better than the 2 QLD teams so other clubs will prefer to be in C2 with the QLD teams than C1 with the WA teams, hence C2 is easier than C1. It had nothing to do with travel as travel really makes no difference at all to a 22 round draw. My bit about teams travelling interstate was in response to your line when you quoted damo. Every conference will have Victorian teams travelling interstate as every team will still play the other 17 teams once and then the other team in their conference twice. As 8 of the 18 teams are from outside of Victoria, every Victorian team will play at least 8 games against non-Victorian sides. Obviously some of those 8 games will not be in Melbourne so the idea that "no Victorian team will ever leave Melbourne' for any conference format is incorrect.

I believe that the conference system isn't set up so much for the geographical closeness of the teams but rather how time zones and tv audiences operate. In terms of baseball, for example, teams in the same conference can be huge distances apart. There are teams that are over 2000 km away from each other but play in the same division (Toronto and Tampa Bay for example). I believe that any argument around geography is a myth, as teams have a full week to travel between cities in the AFL, as well as only travelling across one time zone. The idea of a conference system is neccessary in a country as big as the states but is completely overrated here in Australia.

Very true - the season should then be switched the following year to play at oppositions home ground every second year. I still think however that the system we have at the moment, while certainly not 'fair', provides us with more of the games we want to see.