Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 20 of 20

Thread: HEALTH CHECK - SYDNEY FOOTY

  1. #13
    Almost Football Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bay 7 / Aisle 106
    Posts
    2,665
    If you look at NorWest's results so far this season, they seem to be in the right division - reasonably competitive compared to the teams they're playing. It's one of the strengths of the divisional system that when a team falls on hard times and has to drop teams, there's still a suitable competition for them to play in.

    Hindsight's a wonderful thing, but if the Sydney AFL could have had their time re-seeding the divisions again; when NorWest left a vacancy in Div 2, they probably should have promoted Blacktown rather than Auburn.
    And in the Under 18s, Macarthur Giants look to be out of their depth in Div 1 - they should have been put in Div 2. Again, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
    Australian Football. It's what makes our country great.

    My thoughts on footy, sport, current events and life in snippets of 140 characters or less - @tealfooty

  2. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Coastal Boy View Post

    Why did Sydney Uni drop down from div 1 to 2? Up until a couple of weeks ago their % was over 300.

    The talk of Sydney Uni and Sydney Hills dropping out of premier division next year clearly shows they don't really value that their reserves play the highest standard possible. (I'm assuming they're not fighting the decision.) Syd Uni are travelling OK and Syd Hills might be better next year.
    Just on those couple of points:

    - Sydney Uni didn't drop out of Division 1, our Div 1 / Reserves side was promoted into Premier Division. Our Div 2 team is currently our third grade side who would likely be thumped every week in Div 1. Yes we have a lot of numbers and reasonable depth but not that much. Come uni holidays that team is half filled with fourth grade players - they couldn't compete with the talent in Div 1. This team has been at the Div 2 level since the introduction of divisionalisation and are yet to win a flag so I think they are in the appropriate spot.

    - Not sure whether SU and ECE being removed from PD would be a club initiative or something the League has come up with. It would be of no benefit to us whatsoever to have our fringe NEAFL players being played Division 1, the gap in class between the two is enormous. Then again I'm not privy to that sort of info, just an observation!

  3. #15
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bateau Bay
    Posts
    508
    I appreciate there are usually valid reasons to explain the points I have mentioned in my previous post. However I believe my point remains valid. To think there is an automatic drive for a club team to play the highest division possible is not always the case.

    Is it better to run last in a higher div or win a lower one?

    I just think the whole automatic promotion relegation system should be scrapped for a more reasonable approach.

    A lot has changed now that Manly and UTS have rightfully been promoted. The new clubs of Blacktown, Gosford, Auburn and Randwick could combine with Camden, Norwest and Moorebank to form the nucleus of a div 2 comp. Throw in Sydney Uni, UNSW and UTS who have 4 teams and we're about there. This division would remain untouched regardless of results.

    Div 3 would work better with most premier div clubs 3rd's team. Penno, Sydney Hills, Wests, Norths. Combine this with Div 1's reserves: parramatta, southern power, penrith and mac uni.

    For me this makes more sense. Rivalries can develop. Back to back premierships possible. Better home game day organisation. No penalties for winning or advantages in coming last. Natural ups and downs in performance like it used to be.

    Not a perfect system but the current system isn't either.

  4. #16
    Well retired, still sore Pekay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    In The Goalsquare
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Coastal Boy View Post
    I appreciate there are usually valid reasons to explain the points I have mentioned in my previous post. However I believe my point remains valid. To think there is an automatic drive for a club team to play the highest division possible is not always the case.

    Is it better to run last in a higher div or win a lower one?

    I just think the whole automatic promotion relegation system should be scrapped for a more reasonable approach.

    A lot has changed now that Manly and UTS have rightfully been promoted. The new clubs of Blacktown, Gosford, Auburn and Randwick could combine with Camden, Norwest and Moorebank to form the nucleus of a div 2 comp. Throw in Sydney Uni, UNSW and UTS who have 4 teams and we're about there. This division would remain untouched regardless of results.

    Div 3 would work better with most premier div clubs 3rd's team. Penno, Sydney Hills, Wests, Norths. Combine this with Div 1's reserves: parramatta, southern power, penrith and mac uni.

    For me this makes more sense. Rivalries can develop. Back to back premierships possible. Better home game day organisation. No penalties for winning or advantages in coming last. Natural ups and downs in performance like it used to be.

    Not a perfect system but the current system isn't either.
    It has some merit, yes. All in the sale though.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Have a crack at your new look structure. I put mine up back in 2008 and mysteriously it's what 2009 started with!

  5. #17
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bateau Bay
    Posts
    508
    I doubt the league will make any wholesale changes to the structure but healthy debate is always good.

    I think most clubs have benefitted from divisionisation which has without a doubt strengthened the league. However the negatives to the current format should be highlighted and debated and hopefully addressed in time if possible.

    Incidentally, the BDAFL introduced a 3 tiered comp last year however it doesn't seem to be working much at all. Results remain as lop sided as ever. I don't suggest the BDAFL had a better option but any given team across the divisions can win by 15 goals and then lose by the same margin the next week. The gulf between divisions remains massive so a team which were promoted after a stellar season could get smashed the following year.

    The local comp has always ebbed and flowed. The U/16s moved to Friday night years ago to boost flagging numbers and even folded for a full season. The U/18s doesn't exist any longer at a senior level. It's very volatile to say the least. I think it's fair to say footy on the Central Coast and Newcastle is not travelling as well as Sydney.

  6. #18
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    quakers hill
    Posts
    1,395
    At the end of the day the self serving clubs saw the pathway intoduced and divisions. Some still make excuses some have or are adjusting.

    Reality is the league compromised. Divisions were intoduced, clubs could no longer field three teams in one division or entice scholarship players(some no longer playing),yet status quo remained in PD. Had the logical happened su n unsw would have played SFA Div 1 and town n balmain would heen dropped infavour of uts n manly with a promotion and relegation system put inplace for clubs not teams.

    End of the dsy if clubs were prepared to swallow their pride n do the hard work to regroup n go back up this would be a non issue

  7. #19
    On the Rookie List
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    City
    Posts
    11
    Sydney Uni fought pretty hard to remain in the premier division upon entering the NEAFL, even on the back of a fairly disappointing year last year in PD. The rationale for not being promoted may be twofold, the Div 2 side went out in straight sets last year so didn't make the GF. Also allows the PD sie to be removed should performances not have improved.

  8. #20
    The logic behind a divisional structure doesn't need explaining, but the success of any endeavour is to include flexibility.
    There has to be a mechanism for review. If stake holders approach with honesty about their immediate or medium term outlook
    then the system can be tailored to those who envision a future problem or an abundance of talent or travel or infrastructure.
    give it to the game

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO