http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-09-07/aflw
The format of the AFL Women’s competition will be reshaped in 2019, as the AFL announced it will introduce a new conference system.
With Geelong and North Melbourne set to join the league next year, the expanded 10-team competition will play two conferences of five teams. Teams will play four conference games and three cross-over games.
Carlton will find out who will be in its conference when the fixture is released in October.
Finals?
The two top teams in each conference will contest preliminary finals on the weekend of March 23 – 24. Teams that finish first in each conference will host.
The NAB AFLW Grand Final will be played between the two preliminary-final-winning teams, with the Grand Final host determined by team with greatest number of wins in the home and away season and percentage, if needed.
I think this is a good step for the AFL.
Yes, they screwed up by reducing the number of games in the AFLW season, but i think this idea will keep it interesting for more teams.
I've long been an advocate of some kind of conference system within the mens game in a way to eliminate the unfair fixturing problem the AFL has forced upon itself.
I think this is a good way to test the waters of the general public.
Now we just gotta see who we get in our conference. Not sure if i want Collingwood to be in our conference or the other one so we can beat them in the GF....which we couldn't do if we were in the same conference.
No offence Kruddler because I know you're a big fan of the American systems for their major sports.
I just have a feeling there may start to be some backlash to the 'Americanisation' of our game.
Draft, Free Agency....now conferencing.
Does any of it make the game better.
Does any of it make it more equal.
I'm not sure....but I'm starting to question it.
Having early draft selections certainly hasn't helped us a great deal.
Even picking first rounders up from other clubs has been hit and miss
It's a complicated situation with Northern teams struggling to retain players.
As quick as the initial contract period ends many look for a move home.
I can't see the Gold Coast surviving in their present form.
Free Agency is a mess.
Conferencing presents problems because of the lack of uniformity in the geographical nature of team's locations.
How do you conference with so many teams located in one city.
What criteria do you use?
At Lods
Agree. Our game is unique to Australia, just leave it the fark alone. Why do we have to follow those rubbish American systems. I personally find their sports (baseball, gridiron, Nascar, Indycar etc) absolute tripe.
At Lods
Agree. Our game is unique to Australia, just leave it the fark alone. Why do we have to follow those rubbish American systems. I personally find their sports (baseball, gridiron, Nascar, Indycar etc) absolute tripe.
I agree too. The Americanisation of our game has to stop.
I know that the AFL is walking a tight line with AFLW in that more than a few players have other sporting commitments and the length of the season is constrained by that. However, if the women’s game is to prosper, it must be allowed to grow organically and if that means losing a couple of code jumpers, so be it. Dump the conference crap and let the girls play a fair dinkum season. And fark off that AFLX rubbish at the same time!
No offence Kruddler because I know you're a big fan of the American systems for their major sports.
I just have a feeling there may start to be some backlash to the 'Americanisation' of our game.
Draft, Free Agency....now conferencing.
Does any of it make the game better.
Does any of it make it more equal.
I'm not sure....but I'm starting to question it.
Having early draft selections certainly hasn't helped us a great deal.
Even picking first rounders up from other clubs has been hit and miss
It's a complicated situation with Northern teams struggling to retain players.
As quick as the initial contract period ends many look for a move home.
I can't see the Gold Coast surviving in their present form.
Free Agency is a mess.
Conferencing presents problems because of the lack of uniformity in the geographical nature of team's locations.
How do you conference with so many teams located in one city.
What criteria do you use?
OK, a bit to go through here.
Firstly, its not clear from your post if you noticed the 'w' at the end of the AFL there. Just want to make sure that was noticed.
Secondly, the AFLs 'americanised system' does not work because we have half-ar$ed it. We take bits and pieces of it, but ignore other parts. Its no wonder the system doesn't hold up.
Its like trying to copy the car as a mode of transport. You take the engine, you take the chassis, you take the wheels....but you don't take a gas tank.
How is that 'car' going to work as a system? It won't.
Thirdly, Our game is unique, but running competitions and fairness is far from unique. Being stuck in our own system simply because it is our own does not mean its the best system for us. Honestly, that kind of logic is why America still use the imperial system. A better (metric) system has come along, but we like what we have and thats that. *fingers in ears*
Finally, the criteria used for the conferences is IMO by far the biggest issue with implementing the system in AFL. However, AFLW doesn't have such history, and implementing it NOW would be a lot easier to do than with the AFL.
At Lods
Agree. Our game is unique to Australia, just leave it the fark alone. Why do we have to follow those rubbish American systems. I personally find their sports (baseball, gridiron, Nascar, Indycar etc) absolute tripe.
...and that is 100% fine.
However, it should have absolutely ZERO bearing when evaluating the worth of a 'system'.
At this point I don't think the AFL are going to change their minds: the don't want a long AFLW season. I am not so sure that is the way to go, especially as the competition develops. However, we will be using this model for at least 2019.
Am I a fan? Not really. But if it is going to work, then it is better tried now before the competition 'matures' and becomes reluctant to change. I would prefer a system in which a team plays all of the others, but the AFL have in their minds that they don't want the AFLW and AFL seasons to overlap.
OK, a bit to go through here.
Firstly, its not clear from your post if you noticed the 'w' at the end of the AFL there. Just want to make sure that was noticed.
Secondly, the AFLs 'americanised system' does not work because we have half-ar$ed it. We take bits and pieces of it, but ignore other parts. Its no wonder the system doesn't hold up.
Its like trying to copy the car as a mode of transport. You take the engine, you take the chassis, you take the wheels....but you don't take a gas tank.
How is that 'car' going to work as a system? It won't.
Thirdly, Our game is unique, but running competitions and fairness is far from unique. Being stuck in our own system simply because it is our own does not mean its the best system for us. Honestly, that kind of logic is why America still use the imperial system. A better (metric) system has come along, but we like what we have and thats that. *fingers in ears*
Finally, the criteria used for the conferences is IMO by far the biggest issue with implementing the system in AFL. However, AFLW doesn't have such history, and implementing it NOW would be a lot easier to do than with the AFL.
Yep....the W was noticed....the post was in response to you "long advocating it (conferencing) for the men's competition".
I've long been an advocate of some kind of conference system within the mens game in a way to eliminate the unfair fixturing problem the AFL has forced upon itself.
I think this is a good way to test the waters of the general public.
I'm all for things that improve the game.
I'm all for things that equalise the game as long as they're not too contrived.
I'm less of a fan of the draft as years go by.
Free Agency is a 'genie out of the bottle' and is going to need some major work to put it back in.
Conferencing is pointless when half of the clubs are located in one city.
I don't care much for gimmicky things that don't add to the game.
(and as sure as three feet make a yard...imperial beats metric every time ;) ;D)
Yep....the W was noticed....the post was in response to you "long advocating it (conferencing) for the men's competition".
I'm all for things that improve the game.
I'm all for things that equalise the game as long as they're not too contrived.
I'm less of a fan of the draft as years go by.
Free Agency is a 'genie out of the bottle' and is going to need some major work to put it back in.
Conferencing is pointless when half of the clubs are located in one city.
I don't care much for gimmicky things that don't add to the game.
(and as sure as three feet make a yard...imperial beats metric every time ;) ;D)
You say pointless, i say that can be one of the major reasons to have conferences.
Conferences and divisions generally group teams who are geographically similar. The advantage of that system is to create an untainted draw.
You say pointless, i say that can be one of the major reasons to have conferences.
Conferences and divisions generally group teams who are geographically similar. The advantage of that system is to create an untainted draw.
But isn't our geographical situation and the team/city make-up one that doesn't suit conferencing.
We cant have a Victorian conference and a Rest of Australia conference. That would mean a league that travels all the time and one that doesn't travel at all.
Split the Victorian teams and it's goodbye to some traditional rivalries.
I just cant see the point to having conferences....but you might have a better understanding of how it would work and could show a makeup.
But isn't our geographical situation and the team/city make-up one that doesn't suit conferencing.
We cant have a Victorian conference and a Rest of Australia conference. That would mean a league that travels all the time and one that doesn't travel at all.
Split the Victorian teams and it's goodbye to some traditional rivalries.
I just cant see the point to having conferences....but you might have a better understanding of how it would work and could show a makeup.
I went into great detail into how a system could/would work on the old site. I can't access it now.
I'll attempt to recreate a readers digest version for you now.
Firstly, 18 is a $h!t number to work with, but it is possible. 16, or even 20 work much better. Also, currently the 10 vic vs 8 non-vic makeup also causes some problems. But with that in mind, i'll continue.
Secondly, you can have divisions within the conferences to split it down further.
So off the top of my head a breakdown would go something like this.
Don't get caught up in the nomenclature but basically...
2 conferences - AFL vs VFL
2 Divisions in each.
AFL
West
West Coast
Freo
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
NorthBrisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS
VFL
SouthHawthorn
Geelong
North Melbourne
St. Kilda
Melbourne
'East'
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Western Bulldogs
So how would the draw work?
If you are in the VFL....
VFL, play your own divisions both home and away. = 8 games*
Play your other division once (mix of both home/away) = 5 games
vs AFL - north 2 home/2 away (1 in each city home/away - alternate every year) = 4 games
vs AFL - west 2 home/2 away (i in each city home/away - alternate every year) = 4 games
TOTAL Games = 21*
If you are in the AFL...
AFL, play your own divisions both home and away = 6 games
Play your other division once (1 in each city home/away - ) = 4 games
vs VFL- East 2 home/3 away = 5 games
vs VFL - South 2 home/3 away = 5 games
TOTAL Games = 20
Now in order to even up the games, you could simply NOT play one team in your division twice, reducing the number by 1. Giving a total of 20.
So thats a breakdown of our slightly odd geographical nature and how you could come up with an even draw. That can be sorted out without the AFL chooses who plays who every year. Its set in stone. If you play Freo at home one year, you play freo away next year. You'd play west coast away first year, home second year.
That way every team plays in every team at least once and plays in each state once a year.
There are other ways for you to do a breakdown of the draw which are more indepth, but thats a relatively simple one.
How you'd do the finals could be done a million different ways from there.
A couple of simple ones would be...
1. You could do it so the divisions and conferences mean absolutely nothing for finals. You just use them to get the fixture sorted. You could use a traditional ladder as we do now.
2. You could completely revamp our finals system and go to a more NFL style system which guarantees 1st spot in each division a finals spot and a home final at then you could choose the best of the rest from there, with either traditional ladder or otherwise.
I could continue, but i think you see the point.
Thanks Kruds
Just to clarify a few points
Carlton would play 4 games interstate each year under this system.
How does that differ much in terms of traveling for all clubs from the current system?
We'd play our traditional rivals twice each year...OK with that aspect.
....but am I wrong in saying we'd play Richmond twice every year...but Gold Coast only ever once each year. ( I don't like that! :D)
I guess the bottom line is... What's the benefit?...How is this a more even system given that each year the strong clubs and the weak clubs would change significantly?
The East and South divisions look fairly even at present...that wouldn't always be the case.
Thanks Kruds
Just to clarify a few points
Carlton would play 4 games interstate each year under this system.
How does that differ much in terms of traveling for all clubs from the current system?
We'd play our traditional rivals twice each year...OK with that aspect.
....but am I wrong in saying we'd play Richmond twice every year...but Gold Coast only ever once. ( I don't like that!)
I guess the bottom line is... What's the benefit?...How is this a more even system given that each year the strong clubs and the weak clubs would change significantly?
The East and South divisions look fairly even at present...that wouldn't always be the case.
The current system is hard to nail down, because it isn't really a system. Add to that the fact that some teams sell games interstate (eg Hawthorn and North Melbourne being put in the 'south' category because of their tassie connection).
Basically the AFL 'tries' to do what i'm proposing. 1 game in each state each year, each team in each state at least once a year. You get the China, Tassie, Darwin, Canberra etc games in there, that would changes the aboved breakdown.
Short version, very similar to now.
Yes, we'd play Richmond twice every year (well, 4 out of every 5 years we would, you'd drop a game to get down to 20 under that system).
Yes, we'd only play Gold Coast once (excluding finals). That is basically the point of the system. To lock in who you play each and every year, without the biased hand of the AFL having a say in it.
Of course you would probably play the teams you only ever play once in pre-season games and what not.
Yes, some times one division will be stronger than the other. But that occurs now. One team always has a tougher draw than someone else. That changes from year to year though.
The benefit is, the AFL don't get to handpick who gets an easy draw and who gets a tough draw. Which is currently the case.
If we were going to copy another competition, I'd rather copy the English Premier League.
Play each team twice home and away. At the end of a 34 game season you have your Premier.
Most consistent team wins the league.
The benefit is, the AFL don't get to handpick who gets an easy draw and who gets a tough draw. Which is currently the case.
If that's a benefit I'd take it....but it's not that predictable....Who would have thought Adelaide would miss the eight?
Even the conference system you outline cant be predictable other than guaranteeing "who plays who"
Back to the women....
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/03/a-gimmicky-tournament-aflw-draw-under-fire?CMP=soc_568
If we were going to copy another competition, I'd rather copy the English Premier League.
Play each team twice home and away. At the end of a 34 game season you have your Premier.
Most consistent team wins the league.
Add a team from Tasmania and Canberra.
Have a ten team Premier league (AFL).
Have a ten team Divison 2
Promotion and relegation.
Each team plays each other twice.
18 game season with finals.
Top 2 Teams (D2)go up.
Bottom 2 (AFL) go down.
Oops!
Bad idea ::)
If we were going to copy another competition, I'd rather copy the English Premier League.
Play each team twice home and away. At the end of a 34 game season you have your Premier.
Most consistent team wins the league.
Obviously if there was any chance of the AFL and AFLPA agreeing to that many games, it would happen, but its not going to happen.
My suggested proposal is to keep it similar to the current length.
Add a team from Tasmania and Canberra.
Have a ten team Premier league (AFL).
Have a ten team Divison 2
Promotion and relegation.
Each team plays each other twice.
18 game season with finals.
Top 2 Teams go up.
Bottom 2 go down.
Oops!
Bad idea ::)
Under 1 of my original suggestions i eluded to earlier, i suggested the same addition of those 2 teams.
It would make the whole conference/division system a million times easier to implement, understand and manipulate to give better results.
Problem with the 2 up and 2 down type scenario is the salary cap, and retention of players from the lower clubs.
Under 1 of my original suggestions i eluded to earlier, i suggested the same addition of those 2 teams.
It would make the whole conference/division system a million times easier to implement, understand and manipulate to give better results.
Problem with the 2 up and 2 down type scenario is the salary cap, and retention of players from the lower clubs.
And we'd be stuck in Division 2 :(
I wonder though ( just being serious for a moment. ;))
I reckon there would be as much interest in the club even if they were languishing in that second division.
Sponsorship, gate receipts, memberships even broadcast rights would still be strong for all those D2 sides.
And we'd be stuck in Division 2 :(
I wonder though ( just being serious for a moment. ;))
I reckon there would be as much interest in the club even if they were languishing in that second division.
Sponsorship, gate receipts, memberships even broadcast rights would still be strong for all those D2 sides.
Initially, sure.
Long term? No hope.
How many kids are going to grow up supporting Div 2 sides. Especially when they wouldn't get as much (if any) air time by comparison.
Initially, sure.
Long term? No hope.
How many kids are going to grow up supporting Div 2 sides. Especially when they wouldn't get as much (if any) air time by comparison.
But it would be changing all the time with 2 up 2 down
A 20% change every year. It would be a pretty stinking club that was stuck in Division 2 for very long.
Fox would cream themselves broadcasting every Premier League and divvy 2 game.
There wouldn't be as much difference between a 10 team AFL and its 2nd division as there is between a 20 team English Premier League and its 2nd divison.
But it would be changing all the time with 2 up 2 down
A 20% change every year. It would be a pretty stinking club that was stuck in Division 2 for very long.
Fox would cream themselves broadcasting every Premier League and divvy 2 game.
There wouldn't be as much difference between a 10 team AFL and its 2nd division as there is between a 20 team English Premier League and its 2nd divison.
One major difference between AFL and EPL is 100's of millions of people interested in it.
AFL is struggling from saturation now, more games and teams is probably not ideal.
One major difference between AFL and EPL is 100's of millions of people interested in it.
AFL is struggling from saturation now, more games and teams is probably not ideal.
A couple more would make little difference and be balanced be the promotion/relegation anticipation.
We're mot talking too many more games
The more I think about it the more I think it could work.
You would have to overhaul the player system too.
Imagine Patrick Cripps languishing in Division 2?
You would have to overhaul the player system too.
Imagine Patrick Cripps languishing in Division 2?
If you mess with the player system then you create the problem of making it difficult for weaker teams to advance. What happens now in the EPL if a quality player finds himself in a relegated team?
I was a bit tongue in cheek when I took up your EPL idea. Having thought about it though, it wouldn't be the same as EPL.
With 10 teams per division, rather than 20, interest in Division 2 would only be marginally less than Division 1 because with smaller divisions than the EPL have teams would be moving back and forth regularly.
Rusted on fans of Carlton, St Kilda, Adelaide etc would still be a passionate. Coverage of games wouldn't change much with the addition of two extra sides. Add the extra consideration that your team has a 20% chance of dropping or advancing to another division. It adds a bit of excitement to the end of the season. You certainly wouldn't get a lot of tanking. ;D
I don't know. What would be the advantages of being in Division 1. Premiership prestige? Maybe we're getting back to a Conference system rather than a Division system. Ideally a reduction in sides to around 14 that allows for a complete Home/Away fixture may be the simplest and fairest way to resolve any advantage /disadvantage.
If you mess with the player system then you create the problem of making it difficult for weaker teams to advance. What happens now in the EPL if a quality player finds himself in a relegated team?
Thats the thing. In the EPL, a quality player who plays for a relegated team, whether in contract or not is able to be purchased by another team. They don't have salary caps, and they have the ability to transfer players during transfer windows that open and shut. If we go towards this model, we will need to overhaul how players are able to move in the AFL and that generally will mean that we end up at free agency (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
I was a bit tongue in cheek when I took up your EPL idea. Having thought about it though, it wouldn't be the same as EPL.
With 10 teams per division, rather than 20, interest in Division 2 would only be marginally less than Division 1 because with smaller divisions than the EPL have teams would be moving back and forth regularly.
Rusted on fans of Carlton, St Kilda, Adelaide etc would still be a passionate. Coverage of games wouldn't change much with the addition of two extra sides. Add the extra consideration that your team has a 20% chance of dropping or advancing to another division. It adds a bit of excitement to the end of the season. You certainly wouldn't get a lot of tanking. ;D
I don't know. What would be the advantages of being in Division 1. Premiership prestige? Maybe we're getting back to a Conference system rather than a Division system. Ideally a reduction in sides to around 14 that allows for a complete Home/Away fixture may be the simplest and fairest way to resolve any advantage /disadvantage.
Players will always want to play at the "top level".
Conferences and the like have scope to end up with a bastardised tier competition (we may already be seeing that a little bit with the current player movement).
Everyone wants to win a flag, and everyone wants to play for a premiership contender, and will do so for less money because money will pay the bills, but sports are sports. Ultimately, you play them to win and the money differences are not big enough to be a money hunter.
i.e. Base wages are about 100k mark. Play 20 games a year at roughly 5 grand a game, and you are set to earn 200k a year minimum. Your cost of living expenses are pretty low, as the club provides a lot of gear, flights, food, medical expenses, etc. Anything over an above this, for even 5 years, means pocketing a million dollars plus in wages.
The average joe in the street will see 1 million in wages over 10-15 years minimum. Not 5. All whilst still able to gain an education that will see them able to have a profesional career post footy in pretty much any profession of choice, and half the time if they stay involved in footy as coaches, or "consulting" they will still earn over and above your average person in the street.
The carrots are simply not great enough to sacrifice success for money, unless you get paid an exhorbitantly high figure, and even then, you might find that players will still sacrifice the big $$ for a work life balance, that will yield them a half decent shot at a flag.
This is why free agency as it currently operates is seeing players jump from bad clubs to good clubs at fairly high wages, and by the looks of things, free agents arent flowing the other way, and its actually a mechanism being used to keep average contracts of players down.
"Accept less dollars, and we can attract better free agents".
You guys who want a relegation will find a hell of a lot more opposition to the idea than what i've suggested.
I'm not sure that there is any benefits either.
I can see pretty quickly that teams will come and go...and by that i mean from the entire competition Fitzroy style.
The AFL want equilization, not segregation.
Under my system, all i'm doing is creating a fair draw that cannot be altered by the powers that be to suit their agenda.
You guys who want a relegation will find a hell of a lot more opposition to the idea than what i've suggested.
I'm not sure that there is any benefits either.
I can see pretty quickly that teams will come and go...and by that i mean from the entire competition Fitzroy style.
The AFL want equilization, not segregation.
Under my system, all i'm doing is creating a fair draw that cannot be altered by the powers that be to suit their agenda.
You are right of course. It's not going to come in. There would be too much resistance. It's just throwing out a discussion. I'm not sure I'd even like to see it so I'll have one last go and finish up. ;D
Relegation would not have the same impact in a ten team division as it would in a competition like the 20 team EPL
Clubs would still be supported, sponsored and receive the same coverage as they do now.
Would anyone be less supportive of Carlton in Division 2? I doubt it! They would be anticipating the rise. :D
Teams would move regularly between divisions. The draw would be pretty simple. Each teams plays each other twice -Home and Away
Division 1 play a four or five team finals competition. Division 2 play a four or five team finals competition.
Take this years finishing order and add a couple of teams.
DIVISION 1
RICHMOND
WEST COAST
COLLINGWOOD
HAWTHORN
MELBOURNE
SYDNEY
GWS
GEELONG
NORTH MELBOURNE
PORT ADELAIDE
DIVISION 2
ESSENDON
ADELAIDE
WESTERN BULLDOGS
FREMANTLE
BRISBANE
ST KILDA
GOLD COAST
CARLTON
TASMANIA
CANBERRA
The division 2 teams couldn't be premiers this year. They're not going to be anyway. ;D
Essendon and Adelaide are going up to Division 1 (depending on whether you play a finals series in division 2)
North and Port are going down to Division 2.
With good recruiting Carlton are a chance to move up at the end of next year.
Now take away the promotion/ relegation and there are your conferences, so we pretty much agree ;D ;D
You are right of course. It's not going to come in. There would be too much resistance. It's just throwing out a discussion. I'm not sure I'd even like to see it so I'll have one last go and finish up. ;D
Relegation would not have the same impact in a ten team division as it would in a competition like the 20 team EPL
Clubs would still be supported, sponsored and receive the same coverage as they do now.
Would anyone be less supportive of Carlton in Division 2? I doubt it! They would be anticipating the rise. :D
Teams would move regularly between divisions. The draw would be pretty simple. Each teams plays each other twice -Home and Away
Division 1 play a four or five team finals competition. Division 2 play a four or five team finals competition.
Take this years finishing order and add a couple of teams.
DIVISION 1
RICHMOND
WEST COAST
COLLINGWOOD
HAWTHORN
MELBOURNE
SYDNEY
GWS
GEELONG
NORTH MELBOURNE
PORT ADELAIDE
DIVISION 2
ESSENDON
ADELAIDE
WESTERN BULLDOGS
FREMANTLE
BRISBANE
ST KILDA
GOLD COAST
CARLTON
TASMANIA
CANBERRA
The division 2 teams couldn't be premiers this year. They're not going to be anyway. ;D
Essendon and Adelaide are going up to Division 1 (depending on whether you play a finals series in division 2)
North and Port are going down to Division 2.
With good recruiting Carlton are a chance to move up at the end of next year.
Now take away the promotion/ relegation and there are your conferences, so we pretty much agree ;D ;D
The draw is easy, everyone plays eachother twice......for a total of 38 games?
Why not just have the current system and do the same thing and end up with 34 games?
The reason why is that its too many games, the AFL, players and every man and his dog doesn't want that many games.
So on that point alone, the rest of the 'system' is irrelevent. It won't work.
Players want less games.
Supporters want less bias.
AFL want more attractive football.
Thus, my proposed system.
The draw is easy, everyone plays eachother twice......for a total of 38 games?
Why not just have the current system and do the same thing and end up with 34 games?
The reason why is that its too many games, the AFL, players and every man and his dog doesn't want that many games.
So on that point alone, the rest of the 'system' is irrelevent. It won't work.
Players want less games.
Supporters want less bias.
AFL want more attractive football.
Thus, my proposed system.
That was poorly written on my part, and poorly interpreted on your part. ;D
You would only play the other teams in your division. You would play them twice. A total of 18 games -Home and Away-Plus a four or five team final series. Less games, much simpler. If you want to call it a conference and do away with the promotion /relegation fine.
That was poorly written on my part, and poorly interpreted on your part. ;D
You would only play the other teams in your division. You would play them twice. A total of 18 games -Home and Away-Plus a four or five team final series. Less games, much simpler. If you want to call it a conference and do away with the promotion /relegation fine.
So what you're saying is given where all the teams are currently.
We would play against GC, Freo, Adelaide, St. Kilda, Brisbane, Bulldogs twice....as well as 2 new teams twice.
But wouldn't play against Collingwood or Richmond at all....and Essendon just sneak into the bottom section, but would most likely go up the next year meaning that we wouldn't play any of the other big 4 (including traditionals Melbourne, Hawthorn and Geelong).
Yeah, nah.
Not many games for me to get excited about seeing. With teams like that our gate takings would fall through the floor as well as interest in the team. $'s would dry up. We hand back the keys.
Good plan :P ;)
Just to clarify I don't think promotion and relegation is a suitable solution.
So what you're saying is given where all the teams are currently.
We would play against GC, Freo, Adelaide, St. Kilda, Brisbane, Bulldogs twice....as well as 2 new teams twice.
But wouldn't play against Collingwood or Richmond at all....and Essendon just sneak into the bottom section, but would most likely go up the next year meaning that we wouldn't play any of the other big 4 (including traditionals Melbourne, Hawthorn and Geelong).
Yeah, nah.
Not many games for me to get excited about seeing. With teams like that our gate takings would fall through the floor as well as interest in the team. $'s would dry up. We hand back the keys.
Good plan :P ;)
It's not going to happen of course.The divisions/conferences I posted were just a starting point. It would be very flexible and top drawing teams would be moving up and down on a regular basis but promotion/ relegation is not a concept that would be easily sold to the masses. I don't mind your conference set up. There is a different problem though with the fixed conferences you outlined earlier in the thread. The AFL wouldn't approve a conference with all the top drawing sides in one group as occurs in your East group. If I was Swans official I wouldn't be too happy with my place in the North conference. It's hard to make everyone happy.The only fair system is every team playing the other twice. We'll have to wait for a few dropouts.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-07/aflw-2019-all-you-need-to-know-about-system
So there is an explanation into how the AFLW conference system will work.
As usual, its half-ar$ed.
Points of note.
- It is not set conferences - The team breakdown in each conference will change every year.
- Top 2 from each conference play finals
- Top of each conference gets a home final against 2nd of the other conference - THIS IS IMPORTANT - It means that you can have a grand final between 2 teams in the same conference.
- You play your own conference once, and 3 from the other conference for a total of 7 games.
- Finals is same time as R1 and R2 of the AFL season.
Basically, the only part of this that is calls for the 'conference' tag, is that there is no combined ladder. Its top 2 from each conference that makes finals, NOT top 4 from 10 teams in the traditional ladder.
The fact that the conferences are not set is also disappointing. No chance to build up a rivalry, which is half the appeal of a conference system in the first place.
...but baby steps. It IS a step in the right direction.
The main appeal of this system in AFLW is less dead rubber games, you don't need to finish top 4, you just need to finish top 2 in your conference.
Thats the main reason i want it brought in for the mens game, as well as providing an AFL tamper proof, even, draw.