NEW FORMAT OF THE AFL

[karnak]

There seems to be a lot of contention around the interstate vs vic etc etc etc. This has arisen once again with what looks like kangaroos set to move to the gold coast.

I believe that the following should happen.

Kangas and Hawks relocated.

This makes 8 interstate and 8 victorian teams.

At this point there sould be 2 divisions.

A Victorian league and an Interstate leage.

It works as follows; Victorian teams play one another twice throughout the season.

Intestate teams play one another twice throughout the season.


The top 2 teams from each division enter a finals series.

The shorter season allows for bigger preseason and higher lvl of competition. It also allows the game to build overseas with more time for exhibition matches etc.

This would largely remove the home ground advantage that interstate clubs currently have over victorian clubs. It would also allow the remaining vic teams to survive because they would all get to play the vic teams twice throughout the season.

Anyway, its different but the current format sucks.

[Armoooo]

Interesting, I don't think I like it but it's a good thought.

[evertonfc]

You're overcomplicating it.

Scrap the NAB Cup and make every team play each other twice.

I did some research on it a while back and it basically equated to an extra three weeks of footy.

Start the season earlier and end it a bit later - it's very possible, and would force clubs to work harder to maintain stronger lists and a better top 30 players, rather than scraping together a bare-bones 22.

More money would come into the game from TV rights. Clubs would be wealthier and less likely to relocate, but also feel a little easier and shifting one or two games interstate. Players would earn more; fringe and younger players would be given substantially more opportunities - meaning a better test for coaches and assistant staffs to develop year-long plans for how they'd manage their lists.

Wear and tear is probably the only issue, but even then, I don't think it's as big as people make it out to be. Clubs would need to learn, as they do in the UK (where clubs can play up to 50 matches per year with only three months break - sometimes no break for players on international duty) how to manage their players.

The benefits are massive for the game. I can't wait to see it happen. It's not the impossibility some people think...but we would have to wait until the next round of TV rights.

[karnak]

This isn't just about playing teams twice,

this is about not getting bent over and black chooked every time we have to go and play interstate.

The point is that the home grounds make a massive difference. Don't forget that Geelong, effectively have an interstate advantage becasue of their home ground compared to TD and MCG.

This is about keeping the other Vic teams afloat. If we continue down the current route then in 30 yrs there will only be 5 vic teams at most.

[strauchanie]

i can simplify it:

1. Merge Melbourne, Kangas and bulldogs into one team. 14 teams will allow 28 rounds in a season so each team plays each other twice. Have a final 6 instead of 8.
2. Bring Back Waverley
3. Allow kick to kick after the end of a match
4. Scrap the rules committee and replace it with Glenn Archer. He decides what needs to be done.

Thats how AFL can go back to the glory days

[evertonfc]

This isn't just about playing teams twice,

this is about not getting bent over and black chooked every time we have to go and play interstate.

The point is that the home grounds make a massive difference. Don't forget that Geelong, effectively have an interstate advantage becasue of their home ground compared to TD and MCG.

This is about keeping the other Vic teams afloat. If we continue down the current route then in 30 yrs there will only be 5 vic teams at most.

My way keeps all teams afloat. The increased money coming into the game will allow for bigger salary caps and bigger player payments, but the money going to clubs would still be propotionately larger.

[noreason41]

You're overcomplicating it.

Scrap the NAB Cup and make every team play each other twice.

I did some research on it a while back and it basically equated to an extra three weeks of footy.

Start the season earlier and end it a bit later - it's very possible, and would force clubs to work harder to maintain stronger lists and a better top 30 players, rather than scraping together a bare-bones 22.

More money would come into the game from TV rights. Clubs would be wealthier and less likely to relocate, but also feel a little easier and shifting one or two games interstate. Players would earn more; fringe and younger players would be given substantially more opportunities - meaning a better test for coaches and assistant staffs to develop year-long plans for how they'd manage their lists.

Wear and tear is probably the only issue, but even then, I don't think it's as big as people make it out to be. Clubs would need to learn, as they do in the UK (where clubs can play up to 50 matches per year with only three months break - sometimes no break for players on international duty) how to manage their players.

The benefits are massive for the game. I can't wait to see it happen. It's not the impossibility some people think...but we would have to wait until the next round of TV rights.

I've always thought it's pitiful that there is only 22 games in a season. Having every team play each other once, and 7 teams twice is just asking for fixture trouble.

Their is no possible way to make it fair for every club, UNLESS, every team plays each other twice...once at home and once away. Considering the off season is this long anyway, i could never really see a reason why this couldn't be incorporated.

[strauchanie]

My way keeps all teams afloat.

but do they deserve to stay afloat? When was the last time all teams in the league were financially independent from the AFL? in the 80's it was us and the Bulldogs, in the 90's it was Melbourne, the Hawks and the Kangas, in the 2000's it's still the roos, and melbourne, and the bullies haven't improved much further.

20 years is more than enough time to get yourself together as a football club. If you can't get fans to your club after that much time, it's clear they don't want you.

[karnak]

cutting down teams and extending a season will not solve the inequities in the game. When you extend a season you're increasing your costs as well as your revenues. The AFL gets richer from more rounds and a finals series that seems to go on for ever. ie 5 weeks (that is the same length as rugby world cup ffs) The AFL gets rich from current format, not the clubs.

Having split divisions makes alot of sense. West Coast, Adelaide, Freo etc. will always have a lot of members, and a distinct home ground advantage. This way creates equity whilst still having a national competition. It would bring back the old rivalries.

[Batnoe]

i can simplify it:

1. Merge Melbourne, Kangas and bulldogs into one team. 14 teams will allow 28 rounds in a season so each team plays each other twice. Have a final 6 instead of 8.
2. Bring Back Waverley
3. Allow kick to kick after the end of a match
4. Scrap the rules committee and replace it with Glenn Archer. He decides what needs to be done.

Thats how AFL can go back to the glory days

It wont make it 28, it would make it 26, as we make up the 14th team and we cant play us during the season

[saint66au]

Fair points evertonfc..I just have 2 quibbles...

1. Anyone who thinks that a 30-game season automatically means everyone playing everyone twice is delusional IMHO..or trusts Dimwit farrr too much

2. With no disrespect at all meant to the World game, which Im growing to love, but the rigours placed on the body and the recovery time needed for it are a fraction of what a game of AFL does. EPL players play 3 times in a week without batting an eyelid. Makes our 6 day breaks look a bit sooky..but such are the stresses AFL footy places on the body.

[Riewoldting]

The increased money coming into the game will allow for ... bigger player payments

Somehow I don't think that's what we need. The little darlings and spoilt brats are paid too much as it is.

I like the idea of divisions, but not split according to Victorian and interstate. The divisions should be split according to finishing order the previous season.

Working on the 2007 standings the split would be:

Division A
Geelong
Port Adelaide
West Coast
North Melbourne
Hawthorn
Collingwood
Sydney
Adelaide

Division B
St Kilda
Brisbane
Fremantle
Essendon
Footscray
Melbourne
Carlton
Richmond

Teams play the teams in their own division twice (for 14 games) and teams in the other division once (for 8 games). Total: 22 games.

So in 2008 we would have one Melbourne game and one interstate game against both Brisbane and Fremantle.

We would also play once: Port, West Coast, Sydney and Adelaide. There is room there for two home matches and two interstate matches. In the event that there was an odd number of interstate teams, I am sure that whether the odd game was in Melbourne or interstate could be determined on some rotational basis.

The most times a Victorian team could play interstate under this system would be six (if it were in the same division as all of the interstate clubs). The least would be three (if it were in the other division than all of the interstate clubs).

Finals standings could be determined on the basis of win/loss, or alternatively the top four from each division could play finals. However that creates inequity, as a team finishing 5th in one division might have a better win/loss record than a team finishing 4th in the other division.

Incidentally this system could be used to determine fixtures for the current home and away system, if not for the AFL's desire to schedule "blockbusters".

Money > fairness.

[karnak]

I still haven't seen a response that explains why or why not we shoudn't go for this format.

Unless of course its the old Australian way. Cause we hate change, hence why we've had the same leader for 11 years.

If you're saying you don't like it, then give me a real reason. Don't just go the current system is sort of working.

We all go to work and whinge to our mates about how the competition is unfair and favours interstate, I come up with an alternative, the least you can do it rebutt it.

[ausfatcat]

The increased money coming into the game will allow for ... bigger player payments

Somehow I don't think that's what we need. The little darlings and spoilt brats are paid too much as it is.

quote]


When the top eight origonally came into the competition this was how it was supposed to work.

[Oh When the Saints]

I don't like your idea for the following reasons:

- Having "divisions" effectively ends the sport as a national competition, or one with regular nationwide play. I believe this would be to the detriment of the sport.
- Having a concetration of teams in Victoria would make sponsorship and revenue lower for those Victorian teams, even with only 8, and it will still be comparatively easier to thrive interstate under your system
- One set of teams (Interstate Division) would end up travelling frequently, which incurs higher costs and a whole different philosophy towards player management.
- The other Division would never travel at all during the "regular" season, and this would bring about a contrasting attitude to travel and player management.
- A smaller finals series means less revenue, and the best teams in the country are infrequently competing against each other.
- Scenario: three of the four best teams are interstate teams, and one a Vic team. Only two of the interstate teams make it through to the "finals" under your system ... meaning we don't see the best vs. the best in the finals.
- Bigger pre-season (i.e. result of a reduced season) would mean athletes would be the target for recruiters, rather than footballers, and the game would lose different body shapes and skill level. There would never be a Sav Rocca or Tony Liberatore play the game again (a trend already emerging)
- Interstate clubs would still retain their home ground advantage, albeit against other interstate clubs, rather than Victorian teams. So you are just shifting the problem to a smaller group, rather than solving it.
- Interstate matches would probably not be televised FTA in Victoria (b/c low audience numbers), but you could have Judd and Pavlich running around interstate, and Victorians may never see the best players play.

I love change, but would favour Riewoldting's system over yours, for example.

However, my preference is with a 30-round season.

[evertonfc]

The increased money coming into the game will allow for ... bigger player payments

Somehow I don't think that's what we need. The little darlings and spoilt brats are paid too much as it is.

Like it or lump it, we'd need to get the players on side some way or another. Some extra coin going their way is fair enough - just so long as the extra revenue created largely goes to the clubs first.

Fair points evertonfc..I just have 2 quibbles...

1. Anyone who thinks that a 30-game season automatically means everyone playing everyone twice is delusional IMHO..or trusts Dimwit farrr too much

Would be written into a revised CBA - not a problem.

2. With no disrespect at all meant to the World game, which Im growing to love, but the rigours placed on the body and the recovery time needed for it are a fraction of what a game of AFL does. EPL players play 3 times in a week without batting an eyelid. Makes our 6 day breaks look a bit sooky..but such are the stresses AFL footy places on the body.

Indeed it does place a lot of pressure, but this is where EPL clubs, for example, are excellent at injury and player management. Some players *could* play 50 games in a regular club season, then play in an international competition in the off-season. The reality is that they are rotated intelligently to ensure they remain at peak fitness.

We don't get that idea here.

Rest a player over there and it's entirely logical and justified; rest a player here and you're accused of flirting with your form (if you're in the top half of the table) or tanking (if you're in the bottom half).

I also love the idea of the extra games pushing clubs to test out the lower regions of their lists, as it would naturally do. I think that's great, and gives us the chance to uncover more talent and give more players a go.

You couldn't just rely on your first 22. You'd need to develop a strong list, down to your last few players...

A fantastic test of coaches and their assistants, adding an extra dimension to the game which we haven't really ever looked at before.

[karnak]

sorry riewoldting I posted before I had seen your response, I quite like your idea but in effect seems to mirror a little what the AFL tries to do with the draw.

also I'm all for the NAB cup and more international exhibition games.

[saint66au]

The reality is that they are rotated intelligently to ensure they remain at peak fitness.

The reality is that they dont run a 2/3 of a marathon every week and arent smashed into the turf by multiple 100kg bodies every second time they have the ball Im yet to hear Martin Tyler talk up a players ability to gut-run

Its a great theory on paper everton, but I reckon 100 years of "putting your best available team on the park" might make it just tooo tempting not to rest blokes. Like loaning / trading players mid-season..I reckon this aspect of Phoodball (thanks Les) would not take off in Aussie Rules..unless legislated.

[evertonfc]

I can't think of a respectable national league that uses regional structures to prevent half the league from playing the other. Even the last of the state based soccer leagues in Brazil are now subservient to the Brazilian Serie A.

We can't do promotion/relegation, either. There's not enough money for it to work. Smaller clubs would go bust, and a whole new Division A aristocracy would emerge, with only ever a few clubs challenging for the title (salary cap/draft would keep it fairish, but these clubs would be turning over much bigger funds, meaning better staff and facilties, etc.)

The divisional idea on any scale just isn't feasible...it went out the door with the National Football League.

[Riewoldting]

The divisional idea on any scale just isn't feasible...it went out the door with the National Football League.

In terms of determining who you play once and who you play twice, it's entirely feasible.

The National Football League is still going strong as far as I know.

[plugger66]

I have a better idea. Lets leave the best competition in the world as it is. Yes there are problems with 22 games but 15 still isnt fair and the players would never agree to 30 games. This would add at least 6 weeks to the year even without the pre season comp.

[Oh When the Saints]

the players would never agree to 30 games. This would add at least 6 weeks to the year even without the pre season comp.

Aw, poor things.

Fair dinkum, the rest of the workforce get 4 weeks off per year if they are lucky. And that's working 40+ hours a week.

I know people who've taken 3 weeks off in the past 5 years. Why should you be any different if you can kick a ball on a bit of grass?


Are you telling me the players would complain about getting paid 200k+ per year to work 25 hours per week for 45 weeks of the year (31 week season + 14 weeks preseason)



Blokes like Sheeds managed to spend the day plumbing before rocking up on a Saturday to play in Richmond premiership teams. Ask him if it's unfair to add a few weeks to the schedule of an AFL footballer on 200k+ p.a.

Fair dinkum, a first year draftee earns more than the average Australian.



Poor things. Must be really tough life to be paid that much money for working so hard, and only getting eight weeks off each year.

[plugger66]

the players would never agree to 30 games. This would add at least 6 weeks to the year even without the pre season comp.

Aw, poor things.

Fair dinkum, the rest of the workforce get 4 weeks off per year if they are lucky. And that's working 40+ hours a week.

I know people who've taken 3 weeks off in the past 5 years. Why should you be any different if you can kick a ball on a bit of grass?


Are you telling me the players would complain about getting paid 200k+ per year to work 25 hours per week for 45 weeks of the year (31 week season + 14 weeks preseason)



Blokes like Sheeds managed to spend the day plumbing before rocking up on a Saturday to play in Richmond premiership teams. Ask him if it's unfair to add a few weeks to the schedule of an AFL footballer on 200k+ p.a.

Fair dinkum, a first year draftee earns more than the average Australian.



Poor things. Must be really tough life to be paid that much money for working so hard, and only getting eight weeks off each year.

Do you see the effects the games have on the players. You must be joking or no little or nothing about football. Comparing them to normal workers. Must be the silliest thing written on this site. Some players have an operation every year but that doesnt matter make the season longer. In other jobs they have operations consistantly dont they. A lot of players need to knee replacements, cant play golf, or play with their kids etc when their careers are finished but who cares extend the season. Yes you are right how easy is it for footballers.

[karnak]

I would like to see the season shortened as per my above post.

The reason being.

Get to see the best players on the park together at the same time more regularly.

More chance of recovery to play higher proportion of senior games with longer term injuries like knees etc. For example, Lenny would have played at his peak for more of hte games this year after recovery.

The final ladder is more volatile becasue there are less games!!! think about it, after round 20 we pretty much know who is finiishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. So would make for more excitement.

testing list development. try this out for size. Australia has 20 million ppl or so. we have 16 teams. We have too many teams to have a competition that is of a very very very high standard. Imagine if the comp was suddenly cut down to 4 teams for instance, we would see a much higher standard. by having less games we dont' rely on depth as much, increasing the standard of the game.

Sorry abouut the grammar but typing quickly becasue I'm at work.

[Oh When the Saints]

A roof tiler I know has both knees which are shot and a crook back, and he can't play golf either. He's 50.

Worked 40+ hours a week for twenty-five years, and I don't reckon he would have made six figures in any year in that time.

He is self-employed and rarely took a holiday ... wanted to send his kids to decent schools.


A family member of mine was an ER triage nurse at a public hospital. She was under intense pressure for 40 hours a week for five years, and never got more than four weeks holiday.
She then had a breakdown and couldn't work for close to 12 months.



If I know little or nothing about football, then you know little or nothing about the real world.

Because there are thousands of men and women who work a f***load harder than any AFL player does, and get paid a tenth of the amount.