Gillon's got it backwards, the AFL needs a 5-17 fixture

Would you mind telling all those supporters of your "merged" clubs your suggestion, way to clear a room! Every man and his dog in Victoria would be picking a VFL team or go watch another sport - the walkout would be armogeddon for the AFL and an emptyMCG. Your'e right the only way to even out the draw is to merge Vic clubs but then you'd mass exodus even Geelong supporters - they don't like breaking tradition in the big V, like I said earlier it can't be fixed and it's as good as it going to get - give Ross Oakley a call but he probably won't answer.

That;s grossly unfair from a travel perspective.Best model is for an East and West conferences with the Vic clubs divided into either conference.

Your'e right the AFL would not have worked without Vic clubs of course not but to turn the VFL into a national league at the cost of clubs was really not necessary. I'm not suggesting that the big 4 clubs that I mentioned become part of the AFL at the time, but there would be no reason why we could not have expansion Vic clubs at the time whatever you call them, to say these would not gather supporter base is like saying the expansion teams of today would not also. Sure in the early days there would be some disinterest from Vic fans in the new comp but it would've been only temporary and yes the best players from the VFL would be plucked into to those Vic teams in the new comp - just like the other interstate clubs have done since day one. To say this concept would not gather public interest is like saying all of the expansion teams since 87 would not have gathered any public interest - and look at them now. In my view I believe the VFL as it was and the AFL would be able to co exist and very confident that the VFL as it was would have more fan base than the current VFL. Lastly, I would like you to ask supporters of North, Dogs, Saints and Dees if they would like their club to be "merged" - I know what the general response would be because I know supporters of all these clubs as well supporters of Fitzroy and South, I know if my team "merged" then I know they don't exist anymore.

I'm glad you said you weren't serious. Having to watch VFL just to follow my team is a joke and I doubt I'd even bother. They might as well "go by the wayside". South Melbourne was losing viability and the solution was a whole new market. Years later Fitzroy was broke but had a lot of their identity preserved by allowing another interstate club to lose it's nickname and alter it's colours (they even still honour the Roys ladder position). 5 AFL premierships combined later those moves have been more worthwhile than bumping them off to play park footy and saying at least they didn't go "by the wayside". The fact is the VFL wouldn't have survived without going national and the AFL would not have worked without the VFL teams and it's good that all 12 clubs still exist in the top league in one incarnation or another.

Well said Mick, we had similar thoughts with regard to having twelve teams.

This is a radical suggestion, but how about the AFL just have twelve teams playing each other twice and so therefore you would still have the same 22 rounds we have now; however, just the six matches each week. This would be a truly even draw, as even as you could possibly ever achieve. Twelve teams would be achieved by merging the nine Melbourne clubs into three. With Geelong's club the state of Victoria would have four clubs in total. The existing eight non-Victorian clubs added to Victoria's four, gives you the 12. The number of matches reduces from 198 down to 132.

I hope you're reading all of this Ross Oakley, if you had the balls to create an AFL instead of dismatle the VFL we would not be in this predicament. Right now we have a league heavily based in Vic which is not truly national, travel disparity for non vic teams, "allowances" for teams north of the Murray and to boot we've lost 2 teams with nearly 200 years of history combined in Fitzroy and South Melbourne............... and they won't be the last! At the time of the AFL's inception it was considered not possible to have a fan base for a new league, really?! Let's look at West Coast, Freo, Port & Adelaide - yeah they never got off the ground! Sure we have fairweather supporters north of the Murray - Sydney & Brisvegas but they put bums on seats when they're on, and let's watch the Suns & Giants gather momentum if not already. We already have 8 teams outside of Vic with great membership and following add the big 4 supporter base teams from Vic in Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond & Essendon and there you have your 12 teams. Reinstate the VFL & VFA as they were and easy! Of course I'm not serious, but if Oakley had the grit & determination to actually have proper vision at the time this is what it could look like today and no one can deny that this would be a much fairer comp than the one we have ........................... and those North, Dees, Dogs, Saints etc. supporters could breathe easy knowing their club would not go by the wayside as their South & Fitzroy counterparts. The way it is now - it can't be fixed, unfortunately the only way would be to merge those Vic teams I have mentioned and no one wants that. Thanks Ross good job! Not!

"Got it all wrong" said something similar earlier and it has merit. If the final group has a team (call it Adelaide) and 5 opponents (Port and 1 other top team, one other middle range team and 2 lower teams, then only 5 later games are needed.

another idea is to play a 23-game season made out of Rounds 1-17 every team plays each other once Rounds 18-23 determined by random selection with "pre-requisites" clubs are divided into 3 groups based on previous season ladder (1-6, 7-12, 13-18) and teams play 2 games against 2 teams from every group. Total of 6 games to be played. this ensures every club plays a fair quota of strong, average, and weak teams. the "pre-requisites" are your derbies. the fixture computer will ensure a second derby match is played. For example, Port Adelaide finished in the 1-6 group last year, Adelaide finished in the middele group (7-12). Because Port Adelaide has to play 2 teams from the midddle group (7-12), the computer will give first preference to selecting Adelaide as 1 of the 2 teams it has to play from the middle group. easy as. of course, these 6 matches will be fixtured in reverse from the first encounter earlier in the season.

i wrote this a few years ago on here, still think it's the best and fairest model: if the AFL wants to ensure the fairest and even playing field for all 18 clubs in the competition, it would do well to restructure the home and away season. The format I would advocate would be a 21-game season consisting of: 1. 17 home and away matches against every other team in the league. (obviously for the sake of fairness, the fixture computer will ensure clubs don't for example travel away to perth twice a year) 2. 1 match to be designated ‘rivalry round’ to ensure derbies are played twice a year. 3. 3 more ‘second time’ matches to be determined by RANDOM selection from ‘zones.’ Clubs are divided into three zones determined by finishing position from the previous season (1-6, 7-12, 13-18). Every team simply plays three teams from the three zones to complete a 21-match fixture. obviously, these matches will be in reverse second time around (eg, if Sydney played Hawthorn at home in the first match (Round 1-17), they will be the AWAY team for the second match.

Not to mention the money derby clubs generate.

Derbies are sorted with either all interstate clubs in one group or at least local rival under the 5,2,2 breakdown (5 VIC, 2 WA or SA and 2 NSW or QLD). The more I think about it, the more I prefer that option as a Melb Metro conference will cause a 2 tier, haves and have nots approach to TV coverage. A 5,2,2 model allows for other annual lock ins. Keep Collingwood and Essendon in same conference and that ensures Anzac Day. Keep Collingwood and Melbourne in different groups and that ensures they can't play until mid year fitting in with Queens Birthday.

2 leagues as it were (a la baseball, with the American and national, although with more inter league play). The other big elephant in the room are the lock in fixtures (queen's birthday, Anzac day) and double derbies.

You're right cm. There is no perfect way. I can even live with just 17 rounds and see if a less is more approach has any negative affect on revenue. That said, travel imbalance would not be as distorted as it appears. Victorian teams would travel 4-5 times (which they already do) mid year and many also sell one to three home games to other markets as well. Interstate teams would travel 10 times but they already do. Another split of the teams might be 5 Vic, 2 SA, 2 QLD and 5 Vic 2 WA, 2 NSW so there is like for like in travel, quality of games from a marketing sense etc. AFLPA might be appeased with no NAB Challenge and a rule that no player is to play more than 24 out of 26 games making clubs have to be more strategic in how they manage their lists.

Much less travel for the Melbourne clubs would be an issue. There just isn't a neat way to conference it out in a way that isn't going to disadvantage either one or two clubs who are squished into a conference to make the numbers work or to disadvantage a whole conference. I see how you've tried to solve that in the 6 +2 rule and that's not too bad. Would the AFLPA have an issue with extending the season proper?

I like that one especially as Geelong want to play more games in Geelong. Makes 9 and 9 a very easy split.

Personally I don't see how any of these are better than what we've already got. As it stands we have 18 teams. One option would be to reduce the season to 17 rounds and every team play every other team once. This will not happen as the commercial model that they sell has 22x9 games. My personal feeling is that while there are still 18 teams and it is given that each team will play 5 others twice some effort should be made to ensure these teams are of varying quality. I would suggest that for every club the other 17 teams should be put into 5 different band levels and based on positions from the previous season. The fact that 17 is not neatly divisible by 5 is an advantage as some teams could fit into more than one band and therefore gives the AFL scope for movement in fixturing.

Here's another conference model that can work: Melbourne Confernece (9 teams from Melb metro area). National Conference (8 interstate clubs plus Geelong). Play your conference once (8 games), play other confernce (9 games) and have return games against own confernece (8 games). Drop the NAB Challenge and there is room for 26 games. Stipulate that no more than 6 teams and no less than 2 from each conference can play finals and there is a safe guard against teams missing out on basis that their confernce was too hard and others getting in solely because theirs was too week (or see if 5+3 works better than 6+2).

All of these proposed models miss the point and this one is no different. The only way that any fairness can be incorporated is a seeding system. Rounds 1-17, everyone plays once. Rounds 18-22, based on previous years standings teams are split into 3 groups and each group has 2 top 6 teams, 2 middle tiers and 2 bottom sides. It can also be engineered so a local rivals will always be in same group. (eg Sydney has to play two bottom 6 teams so one can be GWS). That way everyone has an equal number of games against good, middle and weaker sides and a fairer draw. It may mean that Rich Vs Coll or Ess Vs Carl may not be guaranteed for twice a year, but instead all teams will get a more even share of games against high drawing clubs. Another slight change could be to have all of the final round games as local derbies. We now have an even number of teams in each state so there is no longer a need for anyone to travel 1 week before the finals. It is a subtle change to the current model rather than the radical one put forward and seems much fairer than the current one where if you make the second week of finals, you're rewarded with a tougher draw than the teams knocked out in week one.

Surely the solution is staring us in the face. Many sports have conferences where the emphasis is home and away within conference and just once with others. So if we had 3 conferences - North (2 x Qld/ 2 x Syd/ 2 x Mel teams) West (2 x Perth/ 2 x Adel/ 2 x Mel teams) and South (Remaining 6 Vic teams - the 'big 6') - then we would have the same draw year in year out and create inter-Conference rivalry whic is great for fans a la MLB, NFL and other US sports. Closer to home look at Super Rugby. AFL needs to stop messing around and get on with it. After all they have used MLB as inspiration on other issues before.