AFL Conference

[valkorum]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/expert-opinion/forget-the-blockbusters-afl-just-fix-the-fixture/story-fncqi979-1226344945306

This is a very interesting article by Mark Stevens.  It talks about evening the fixture for all teams and getting rid of having blockbusters cos they rate well.

It then goes in to a theory of breaking up the competition in to 3 conferences (6 teams in each) with each team still playing 22 games but a more even spread.

I actually really like this idea.  It's completely different to what we are used to having but I think it makes a lot of sense

[ossie85]

Can't access the article (damn pay-wall), but yes, very interesting idea!

Did they say how they'd split the conferences?

I still like the idea they floated last year, where at the end of Round 17 (everyone plays everyone once), they split into the top 6, middle 6, bottom 6.

The top 6 play for finals positions, the middle 6 play for the last 2 spots in the 8, the bottom 6 play for picks.

BUT if it was 6 conferences? How about:

Adelaide-Port Adelaide-Collingwood-Carlton-Essendon-Richmond

West Coast-Fremantle-Geelong-Melbourne-Richmond-St.Kilda

Brisbane-Gold Coast-GWS-Sydney-North Melbourne-Hawthorn

??

[valkorum]

This is the suggestion in the article

FELDMAN'S AFL TRI-CONFERENCE MODEL

KEY POINTS:

- Three conferences of six teams. Play each team in your conference twice and teams outside your conference once (total 22 games)

- Top two teams from each conference make the finals with the remaining spots being granted to two wildcards (teams with the best record outside the top two of respective conferences)

- Final eight teams to be ranked by record over 22 games

- Current final eight system to be retained

- Conferences to consist of three non-Melbourne and three Melbourne teams (Geelong is considered a non-Melbourne team due to its unique home ground)

- Conferences to rotate over a four-year period to ensure seven local derbies for SA, WA, QLD and NSW teams over four seasons and the nine Melbourne teams play five times each over a four-year period.

- Draft picks 1-8 to be based on records of non-finalists

- Draft picks 9-16 based on positions after finals.

POTENTIAL CONFERENCE ROTATIONS:

Year 1

Group A: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Geelong, Essendon, Western Bulldogs, Carlton
Group B: Gold Coast, Brisbane Lions, Fremantle, Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond
Group C: Sydney, GWS, West Coast, St Kilda, North Melbourne, Collingwood

Year 2

Group A: West Coast, Fremantle, Geelong, Essendon, Melbourne, St Kilda
Group B: Gold Coast, Brisbane Lions, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, North Melbourne
Group C: Sydney, GWS, Port Adelaide, Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood

Year 3

Group A: West Coast, Fremantle, Brisbane Lions, Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood
Group B: Sydney, GWS, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, St Kilda
Group C: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Carlton, Melbourne, North Melbourne

Year 4

Group A: West Coast, Fremantle, Sydney, Essendon, Richmond, North Melbourne
Group B: Gold Coast, Brisbane Lions, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Collingwood
Group C: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, GWS, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda

[Cruiseon]

Makes so much sense.

Which is precisely the reason why the AFL will not even give it thought, when it comes to Money & Ratings V Equity & Fairness, I think their track record speaks for itself.

[Fletch74]

Makes so much sense.

Which is precisely the reason why the AFL will not even give it thought, when it comes to Money & Ratings V Equity & Fairness, I think their track record speaks for itself.

Couldn't agree more. I've been behind something like this for a long time now (when they started to expand the comp into SA and WA)

It is completely unfair for some teams (ie. NM this year - GC and GWS twice) and others like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, and so on who have to play each other twice, therfore perhaps missing out on the easybeats twice. The AFL should look at a conference style format similar to the US, and move it around like the article suggests.

But we all know that the struggling teams like NM, Melbourne, PA, etc all require the blockbusters that the AFL so much want to keep them afloat.

Therefore, there is not a hope in hell of anything like this happening!

[valkorum]

They would still get their blockbusters as they play each team at least once.  Using the example of NM - they can play Collingwood as a home game at the MCG so you can get all the toothless ones (ok, collingwood supporters) in.

[Cruiseon]

Toothless with tattoos all down their back .... woops sorry Valk (but you started it!)  ;)

[Boomz]

Can't access the article (damn pay-wall), but yes, very interesting idea!

Tip someone told me is to copy the headline and search it in google and then open the first result and you can see the full article without having to sign up. 

[valkorum]

Toothless with tattoos all down their back .... woops sorry Valk (but you started it!)  ;)

I got all my teeth so I am not offended at all :P

[Capper]

Can't access the article (damn pay-wall), but yes, very interesting idea!

Did they say how they'd split the conferences?

I still like the idea they floated last year, where at the end of Round 17 (everyone plays everyone once), they split into the top 6, middle 6, bottom 6.

The top 6 play for finals positions, the middle 6 play for the last 2 spots in the 8, the bottom 6 play for picks.

BUT if it was 6 conferences? How about:

Adelaide-Port Adelaide-Collingwood-Carlton-Essendon-Richmond

West Coast-Fremantle-Geelong-Melbourne-Richmond-St.Kilda

Brisbane-Gold Coast-GWS-Sydney-North Melbourne-Hawthorn

??

Thats sucks abit if 4-10 are really close, and top 6 cant drop from there. I would have thought they would follow the NFL system. You pay the teams in your conference home and away and then 5 of the 6 from each other conference