Helps when you realise the current AFL season consists of 24 rounds not 22 weeks.
2 Likes
Sorry, I meant 22 games per team. It’s only 24 rounds because the AFL artificially insert byes to give teams a rest. If they go to 19 teams, there is no choice but to have byes.
So…it’s one bye per team for 19 rounds.
Leaving five rounds with byes for 5 teams, 5 teams, 3, 3 and 3.
19 rounds x nine games = 171 games
Plus
7 + 7 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 209 games
Instead of 24 rounds x 9 games = 216
Minus nine games per year because everyone had a bye.
So…209 games instead of 207 games.
That seems weird.
I’m sure I’ve made a mistake somewhere.
Edit:
Right. It was 23 (not 24) rounds x 9 - 9 byes = 198 games.
So if you had 19 teams in a 24 round season with each team having two byes it would be 11 more games played.
3 Likes
You can add 20 more teams for all I like. I’m not gonna watch them or go to the games. Is anybody? At best it would steal a few fans from other teams. It won’t create more bums on seats or TV viewers. It just waters down the product.
1 Like
Even when they play Essendon?
Only if it’s at Windy Hill 
Exactly what I’ve been trying to tell these people for days, thank you.
It also helps the AFL get the AFL p.a off their case coz each team will get 2 byes.
2 Likes
I’m amazed that I got there at that time of night.
I’m sure there was a simpler way to do it.
2 Likes
I don’t think there is, which is why it seems wrong on first glance.
(I was all set to call Bully a doofus, but had a rare moment of self reflection)
1 Like
As long as 60 percent of the teams are in one location, it’s never going to be “fair”. They might as well deal with it, because to make it “fair” I think might result in a couple Vic clubs getting Fitzroy’d. Not sure you could sell that to the public.
1 Like
You could sell that very easily — as long as the teams that got shifted or shafted had big debts and small memberships. Fitzroy didn’t like being shoved in with the Bears; South Melbourne weren’t too happy about moving to Sydney — but their memberships were too small and their debts too large for their whingeing to have any real effect.
We must cut down the number of Melbourne-based teams, ideally to four, which means the other five will have to relocate, amalgate or fold.* Add in two new teams (e.g., Tas and NT) and if there are still 20 clubs, split the League into two divisions, with promotion and relegation between them.
*Norf, St. Kilda and Footscray will be chopped; deciding which will be the fourth & fifth teams to go is a problem.
1 Like
Easily solved. Essington. Never want to see them carnts again!!
1 Like
Relocations are the way to go following the swans model. The team keeps it’s full identity, the new club is stronger because of all that history and support base behind it and the fans in the new location will jump on board in the second and third generation, not caring that it was originally a Victorian team.
Personally I’d be happy with 2 Melbourne clubs moving out bringing it down to 8 Vic clubs, 10 interstate. Order of preference:
- North
- Melbourne (only thing that saves them is their name)
- Bulldogs (small supporter base but geographically important covering the western suburbs of Melbourne).
- Saints (much bigger supporter base than the other three which is the most important metric because form is temporary. Cover the south east).
Relocated VFL sides only work in the northern markets. Dyed in the wool footy states don’t want anything to do with Victoria’s sloppy seconds.
1 Like
Easily fixed. We’ll take that area… plus Norf’s.
2 Likes
Can they put it on wheels though? Must go to Launceston every other home game.
4 Likes
What do you think it is? A stadium for ants??
4 Likes
Agree. I think in the end it’s going to be licenses revoked and reallocated in prefer to reduce the number of Melbourne teams. It’s probably the only way to get around things like the amendment to Norths constitution to prevent them being moved. It also doesn’t require the clubs in question to necessarily fold.
Depends. What can ants play?