Would the Conference System work in Australian sport?

With recent expansion in the AFL and controversy in the draw format along with planned expansion in the NRL and its acknowledged draw manipulation, is the integrity of our two pre-eminent national competitions under threat?

It would be an interesting experiment in the Australian market to see if the US conference system would work in our national competitions. The Conference systems have evolved in the US as a result of expansion and the need to ensure that both historical rivalries are maintained and the competition schedules are as fair as possible. A conference system in Australia's competitions would need to be manipulated slightly to ensure the most beneficial outcomes.

In the NRL an expansion to 18 teams would result in the most equitable competition. Two conferences of nine teams would result in a Sydney conference comprised of Manly, Cronulla, St George, Sydney, South Sydney, Wests, Canterbury, Parramatta and Penrith. The non-Sydney conference would consist of Newcastle, Canberra, Brisbane, Gold Coast, North Queensland, Melbourne, New Zealand and the two expansion teams. The season would be extended by one round to 25 games. Teams in the same conference would play each other twice and all other teams once, alternating home and away fixtures each season.

In terms of finals, with such large conferences the top two in each conference should be guaranteed finals football in the top 4. The next best four teams in a combined table would be placed in positions 5 through 8. This would provide sporting integrity to the NRL's admitted draw bias which allowes clubs to nominate the rivals they would like to play at home each season.

In the AFL, recent expansion and the draft would make a conference system somewhat less equitable as the expansion teams are at a significant disadvantage in their earlier seasons. Any future expansion, presumably to Tasmania and Canberra would further make a non-Victorian conference uneven and put Victorian teams at a disadvantage.

With 10 Melbourne/Geelong teams, 8 non-Victorian teams and a 22 game season the only obvious conference system is for three six-team conferences. Teams would play all 17 teams once plus their own conference a 2nd time. How to split the Victorian teams would be the most contentious issue to come out of these conference allocations. Most obviously would seem to be Collingwood, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Carlton, Melbourne and Richmond in once conference, then Essendon, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Geelong, Adelaide, and Port Adelaide in the second conference. The six other interstate teams constituting the third conference.

With expansion, four five-team conferences would be the most obvious. Teams would play each other once plus their four conference opponents a second time for a 23 game season. The top team in each conference would qualify for the top-4 play-offs. The remaining wild card finalists (4 or 6 teams) may need to be based on a 2 Victorian/ 2 non-Victorian basis until five or so years after expansion. 

The key question is would Australian fans accept a conference system. This would be the job of the AFL/NRL to do the hard sell on the integrity benefits. In the NFL, the small divisions combined with the draft allows teams to improve markedly in a very short space of time. With only five teams in your division you have a benchmark for improvement to target that is not insurmountable.

In the NRL, a conference system would appeal to the tribal background of the sport and the conference system would encourage Sydney rivalries and battles just as the interstate teams are regularly beginning to dominate the sport. I think this would be a much easier sell.

A conference system has the potential to reduce the annual discussion over the fairness of draws and provide integrity across the competition. It may also pique the interest of weaker teams by providing them with targeted areas for improvement in smaller conferences. Lets hope for its introduction in the near future!