Season 2016 - early days

[tara]

Let's look at this from a growth perspective; UTS have added 2 new teams to the League and Moorebank have added none. For this they should be applauded rather than derided. And add to that, whenever you add numbers to a club and 2 teams in this case, it is harder to be competitive/field teams each week etc. I don't think they will clean sweep the season.

Tell me how UTS added two new teams? I may be mistaken but both clubs withdrew a team last year and both have added one this year. The only difference is we withdraw our bottom graded team not our least performing.

[The Runt]

Let's look at this from a growth perspective; UTS have added 2 new teams to the League and Moorebank have added none. For this they should be applauded rather than derided. And add to that, whenever you add numbers to a club and 2 teams in this case, it is harder to be competitive/field teams each week etc. I don't think they will clean sweep the season.

Moorebank now South West Sydney have in past decade gone from 1 mens team to 3 mens an U19s and a Ladies team so for you to say SWS have added none is a little silly don't you think. Also the way that UTS have consistently manipulated the system to accumulate lower div silverware is the stuff of legends.

[Norris Lurker]

There are 9 teams in Div 3 and 11 teams in Div 4. Therefore a bye each week in both divisions.
Surely the next best team in Div 4 would be competitive moving up.
Common sense really. One of the benefits of divisionalisation is being able to easily tweak competitions to avoid this crap and make it better for everyone.

12 teams in Div 4. Premier Div & Div 3 are the only divisions with a bye.

[ShortHalfHead]

12 teams in Div 4. Premier Div & Div 3 are the only divisions with a bye.

As well as women's div 1...and of course the great 5 team 19's D2 who will very likely have a few forfeits to throw in

[Coastal Boy]

Obviously I stand corrected.
I read that attachment incorrectly.
I would support 2 teams promoted and also relegated from each division each year. It potentially would even up the competitions much quicker.

[Benchwarmer]

I would support 2 teams promoted and also relegated from each division each year. It potentially would even up the competitions much quicker.

Most people would agree with you I guess but if they can't honour the existing rules around promotion and relegation , it is fantasy to think any upgraded changes would be honoured anyway .

[Pmcc2911]

quite a bit happening in the 19's, I understand Wests and Holroyd/Parra are going up to Div 1 and there is also at least 1 new Div 2 team

[Mug Punter]

Most people would agree with you I guess but if they can't honour the existing rules around promotion and relegation , it is fantasy to think any upgraded changes would be honoured anyway .

Won't happen until we go back to the traditional structure of a First and Reserves for two divisions as in the old SFL and SFA. It's how all other leagues in Australia work.

Divisionalisation has worked to an extent but a hybrid model is required.

- - - Updated - - -

quite a bit happening in the 19's, I understand Wests and Holroyd/Parra are going up to Div 1 and there is also at least 1 new Div 2 team

The under age comp has gone nowhere fast in the last 20 years, it needs to start driving the game. We are about to start to see the first batch of kids coming through the academy that have been there since day 1 of their football development. It should start to drive a fairly significant increase in standard at U19 level

[Pmcc2911]

The under age comp has gone nowhere fast in the last 20 years, it needs to start driving the game. We are about to start to see the first batch of kids coming through the academy that have been there since day 1 of their football development. It should start to drive a fairly significant increase in standard at U19 level[/QUOTE]

The 19's are about to become an issue for clubs and the SFL in general.
We have seen a number of academy players in the 19's for a couple years now and this will increase as MP points out. It has already had an effect of increasing the standard of the 19's (particularly Div 1) but the flip side is it risks becoming an "elite" comp, particularly as the academy uses it to transition their juniors to the senior grades.

I estimate (based on a small sample and extrapolated out) that up to 100 x 17 yo across Sydney stop playing footy after u/17's.
Myriad of reasons, HSC study, other sports, don't want to play serous footy, other diversions (girls, beer etc) the list is large.

Add to that the 19's(Div 1) becoming better and more "elite" the gap between 17's and 19's for most kids just gets bigger and bigger.

I believe the 19's Div 2 comp needs to be expanded and positioned as a more "social" comp to try and attract some of the missing 100.

A good start would be to relax the "cant play the Div 1 and Div 2 on the same weekend rule" so clubs can take a risk and introduce a Div 2 team and not worry about the forfeit penalties.
In addition forfeit penalties should be relaxed for "start up" teams in general.

[Benchwarmer]

[QUOTE=Mug Punter;689552]Won't happen until we go back to the traditional structure of a First and Reserves for two divisions as in the old SFL and SFA. It's how all other leagues in Australia work.

Divisionalisation has worked to an extent but a hybrid model"

I prefer your original idea of 3 comps of 8-9 seniors and reserves.
Caters better for the clubs who have both 3rds and 4ths by ensuring they are paired every game home and away .
With C'town and W'dilly also now a possibility .

Divisionalised from there on .

[tara]

A good start would be to relax the "cant play the Div 1 and Div 2 on the same weekend rule" so clubs can take a risk and introduce a Div 2 team and not worry about the forfeit penalties.
In addition forfeit penalties should be relaxed for "start up" teams in general.

The reason that players cant play 2 games on the same weekend is because clubs with two teams couldnt be trusted not to deliberately manipulate results in their favour.

[ShortHalfHead]

I believe the 19's Div 2 comp needs to be expanded and positioned as a more "social" comp to try and attract some of the missing 100.

A good start would be to relax the "cant play the Div 1 and Div 2 on the same weekend rule" so clubs can take a risk and introduce a Div 2 team and not worry about the forfeit penalties.
In addition forfeit penalties should be relaxed for "start up" teams in general.

The two tier comp just isn't working, and has got worse since the comp went from 18's to 19's.

Suggestions that 19's should be play in both their teams division on any one weekend is just to try and prop up the 2nd tier comp, with some clubs just looking at manipulation the system. They have already relaxed the number of 17's that can play up from this season just to ensure some numbers. So how sustainable is it to run a 19's competition filled up with players backing up and filled up with Under 17's.

I don't see why relaxing the forfeit rule to start up teams will help. It certainly won't help the teams they play who have done the right thing and not just assuming they will have match numbers by the time April comes around. A forfeit affects more that the team who can't get the numbers.

I don't even believe the league checks too hard if a team has the numbers when they nominate. I know back in GB's day he was a tiger when it came to checking credentials of 'new teams". Even last year, MG was ringing clubs with their thoughts about a new 19's team being admitted and how it may affect the clubs around them. Homework is a good thing.

I believe (and suggested it last year to the league) that there should be a one-tier Div 1 competition (Preferably back to Under 18's) and those clubs that think they can field a competitive side, do so. The others revert back to the junior clubs who will also field Under 18's and still play reasonably locally. They can also be given the opportunity of playing in the Div 1 teams as top ups.

The current situation just isn't adding up.

[Jupiter]

The two tier comp just isn't working, and has got worse since the comp went from 18's to 19's.

Suggestions that 19's should be play in both their teams division on any one weekend is just to try and prop up the 2nd tier comp, with some clubs just looking at manipulation the system. They have already relaxed the number of 17's that can play up from this season just to ensure some numbers. So how sustainable is it to run a 19's competition filled up with players backing up and filled up with Under 17's.

I don't see why relaxing the forfeit rule to start up teams will help. It certainly won't help the teams they play who have done the right thing and not just assuming they will have match numbers by the time April comes around. A forfeit affects more that the team who can't get the numbers.

I don't even believe the league checks too hard if a team has the numbers when they nominate. I know back in GB's day he was a tiger when it came to checking credentials of 'new teams". Even last year, MG was ringing clubs with their thoughts about a new 19's team being admitted and how it may affect the clubs around them. Homework is a good thing.

I believe (and suggested it last year to the league) that there should be a one-tier Div 1 competition (Preferably back to Under 18's) and those clubs that think they can field a competitive side, do so. The others revert back to the junior clubs who will also field Under 18's and still play reasonably locally. They can also be given the opportunity of playing in the Div 1 teams as top ups.

The current situation just isn't adding up.

That's a fantastic suggestion on a number of levels - the junior club idea could help with the "its too serious" to play when I am in my HSC etc issues. Bottom line what the AFL have been doing in U18s and U19s is a mess, consistently so why not try something like this. We've seen many teams forfeit over the years and some fold during the year while we have seen some clubs rejected from having 1 or even 2 teams. At this level it is still all about organisation and parents and its high maintenance, unless you have top volunteers in place for the year and a big core group of players you are in strife. Now how about some ideas for fixing the Youth side of things root and branch - i.e. thousands of U/6s propping up the participation stats but most dropping out for school sport or nothing during high school. School footy just can't seem to get going on any decent level.

[Pmcc2911]

The reason I made the comment about relaxing forfeits for new teams/clubs is to encourage clubs to take a risk and nominate a side with having to worry about the heavy penalties for forfeits or team withdrawals.
I appreciate it cant be a can't be a carte blanche no penalty rule. If you have 40-45 guys committing for one team (19's or seniors), it is too many and some guys will miss out.
If you accept you probably need 50 guys for two teams do you take a punt and nominate the second team and hope you drag in some extras bodies after the nomination closes (and risk a forfeit) or do you (because of the penalties) not nominate the second team and a heap of guys ended up not playing.
Clubs would have to present their numbers to show they are close to getting their second team, to be allowed the relaxed penalty.

The U/18 junior team concept is interesting.
Would need to rearrange the junior levels to U/15-16 and U/17-18, not enough kids running round to have a separate U17's and a U/18's comp.
Like the idea of using guys from these teams as top ups to the senior club, could maintain the existing 19's structure - Going straight from 18's to seniors is a big jump for those kids other than the elite academy kids.

[Mug Punter]

I don't see any problem at all with Under 17s backing up from their junior club and playing Under 19s for a district club, it's a good way to introduce talented junior footballers to a better level of football. But this may not be practical now as I believe juniors are now on Sundays to pander to the private schools so that blows out that suggestion.

And I might add if we have moved juniors to Sunday that is a joke given that the GPS and CAS systems have finally committed to Saturday sport.

I think Under 19s is the right age group in Sydney, the kids are a bit more grown up and better integrated into a senior club and that extra year helps with numbers.

My personal view is that if you can't get an Under 19 team then you shouldn't be competing at SFL/Div 1 level. Let UTS and their coterie of Adelaide college boys go back down to the amateurs. Seriously, let's get back to a traditional structure - Firsts, Ressies and Under 19s for all our SFL clubs, all clubs playing on the same day and same venue with the Club Championship being a major award