Relegation: good thing or bad thing?

[Furball]

Well he grew up watching the AFL, so it isn't that surprising...

Pro salary cap, ftr. It's ridiculous that most football leagues have around 4-5 big clubs, and relegation only gives the bottom tier something to play for. The middle clubs, who can't challenge for a premiership but aren't bad enough to be relegated have nothing to play for.

It's more ridiculous that poor teams are rewarded for their mediocrity by getting preferential treatment in the draft.

 

[morgieb]

Pick the poster who doesn't follow salary cap based leagues.

Collingwood are the most 'prestigious' club in the AFL. Didn't win a premiership for 20 years though. So there goes your theory about only the prestigious clubs will win because everyone would do anything to play for them.

tbf it's harder to play for the club of your choice in the AFL without free agency, and with caps and drafts.

 

[Furball]

tbf it's harder to play for the club of your choice in the AFL without free agency, and with caps and drafts.

So basically the AFL gets away with treating its players like **** because they're the only show in town?

 

[morgieb]

Genuine question, do players not get a choice who they play for in the draft/salary cap system? I have NFI about it (hence why I've just focused on the relegation question)

You can still play for who you want in a cap system, but not in a draft system. However, you can still change clubs after being drafted into a club should you desire.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think you look at the ways that different sports have developed, and you can understand.

Australian sports have been more regional based when they were created, so there's been a gradual merging of teams into different leagues, which were generally even and had a wide range of winners to start off with, so as more teams were admitted there was an emphasis on providing those teams with the same opportunities. The tyranny of distance means that only the uber-professional teams can afford to be flying around the country every second or third week. There's no way that a team that came up from a feeder league, for example, could be self-sufficient enough without the league pouring ridiculous funds into it. Would help no-one. Remember, the VFL (which developed into the AFL) was also a breakaway league.

English game has to have it. Distances aren't as big an issue (trip from Manchester to London took half an hour by horse and cart in 1893, IIRC) and there are such big financial incentives which are not administered by the league/admin bodies (as such, believe it comes from Sky and sponsorship) for promotion. It's what the game is based on, and the simple fact is that if you used equalisation strategies, players can leave for other markets. In the AFL, NFL, MLB, NBA, that option isn't really there, it's the pinnacle of their sport, and the skills aren't easily transferable to another game (see League, Union).

But I'd compare it to the Super League, there's such a big division between the haves and have nots, from what I've seen, that it's a game that would be better off concentrating on the top 10 teams (they act and market like franchises anyway) and closing the gap, reduce the heap of thrashings within the top division and provide some temporary support to the weaker teams. I guess it would kill off the Cup though. Especially if the NRL's cap becomes bigger, it'll make the focus on developing English players more, so will be interesting to see how it develops.

Super League teams are effectively franchises now. It did away with promotion and relegation three years ago.

The SL franchises are only awarded for three years tho, so teams from outside aren't totally cut adrift. Widnes (traditionally one of the big teams) have been awarded one for 2012, actually so at least one of the current SL teams will miss out. Probably the Crusaders, if there's any justice. Worthwhile experiment taking the pro game to Wales, but badly handled from the outset and they're currently in administration.

Be interesting to know anyone's thoughts on a draft versus not having one too. Obviously one of the big differences between the way the NRL & AFL are set up. I'm instinctively anti, it seems to remove the possibility of kids coming through the ranks at a club (fans over here at least generally have greater soft spots for their team's own products), but I suppose it's a way of ensuring an even spread of talent.

 

[Furball]

Actually if you want to pick on European leagues for not being equal, picking on the Premiership is a little bizarre given that the Premiership is one of the most egalitarian leagues in Europe when it comes to TV money distribution.

 

[Furball]

Super League teams are effectively franchises now. It did away with promotion and relegation three years ago.

The SL franchises are only awarded for three years tho, so teams from outside aren't totally cut adrift. Widnes (traditionally one of the big teams) have been awarded one for 2012, actually so at least one of the current SL teams will miss out. Probably the Crusaders, if there's any justice. Worthwhile experiment taking the pro game to Wales, but badly handled from the outset and they're currently in administration.

Be interesting to know anyone's thoughts on a draft versus not having one too. Obviously one of the big differences between the way the NRL & AFL are set up. I'm instinctively anti, it seems to remove the possibility of kids coming through the ranks at a club (fans over here at least generally have greater soft spots for their team's own products), but I suppose it's a way of ensuring an even spread of talent.

IMO drafts reward mediocrity and shift responsibility for player development towards clubs/structures that ultimately don't see the benefit of that player's talent.

 

[Ausage]

By any objective measure, leagues with a salary cap are no more or less competitive than those that have none. There's just no empirical evidence to suggest that it helps unless you cherry-pick examples.

Rubbish. What would you consider "cherry picking examples"? What would you consider objective measures?

In the last 12 years the NRL has had 10 different winners of the competition, with all but 3 of the teams in the league making a grand final. IIRC the AFL is less even, but there's still been far greater diversity of teams challenging for top honors than any european football league you'd like to mention.

 

[marc71178]

I hadn't realised that, though I guess once you think about it they did have quite an expensive side, albeit funded by their own sales (Cole most particularly), I think?

Yes, the likes of Ruel Fox and Darren Peacock may not be big names but in current terms they cost the equivalent of just under £30m between them! That's before you add in Ferdinand and Asprilla. Shearer then just tipped things completely over the top. For anyone interested in how much money has played a part in the premier league, I'd strongly recommend Pay as you Play by Paul Tomkins - a lot of numbers in there but it does show a lot of what have been termed bargains to be far from it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Rubbish. What would you consider "cherry picking examples"? What would you consider objective measures?

In the last 12 years the NRL has had 10 different winners of the competition, with all but 3 of the teams in the league making a grand final. IIRC the AFL is less even, but there's still been far greater diversity of teams challenging for top honors than any european football league you'd like to mention.

Without looking it up I'll guess Souths, Cronulla and the Titans?

The cap does seem to make more of a difference in Oz sport than our own, it must be said. In the SL there's been only 4 winners in 15 years & (I think) only Hull has even made a GF from outside the big 4. Same with union; Sale won the Premiership once, but aside from that I think it's been shared between Leicester and Wasps since Newcastle won it in (from memory) 1998.

 

[Burgey]

So basically the AFL gets away with treating its players like **** because they're the only show in town?

If a player challenged the AFL draft system it would be tossed inside a minute in court. In fact, I don't even know if they'd bother to defend it, it's that obvious.

Someone will do it one day, then the AFL will need to deal with it. Until then, it seems to work pretty well tbh.

 

[Ausage]

Without looking it up I'll guess Souths, Cronulla and the Titans?

The cap does seem to make more of a difference in Oz sport than our own, it must be said. In the SL there's been only 4 winners in 15 years & (I think) only Hull has even made a GF from outside the big 4. Same with union; Sale won the Premiership once, but aside from that I think it's been shared between Leicester and Wasps since Newcastle won it in (from memory) 1998.

Actually I tell a lie, Canberra need to be added to the list, and it's only 9 teams that have won the comp (Brisbane won 2). For those who are unfamiliar with the NRL the Titans only came into existence in 2007. Of those 4 only Souths haven't had years where they were a realistic chance. The other 3 have all gone within 2 games of the grand final in the last 4 years.

The reason the salary cap works in Australia is because it's reasonably strict and all teams can afford it (although Cronulla do struggle). My knowledge of SL is only rudimentary but I'd be surprised if any teams other than your big 4 are using up all the cap. If the salary cap was lowered so that all teams could afford it, you'd get a much more even competition. You'd get a whole host of other problems (defection to Union most likely), but it would even the comp.

 

[Jono]

Benchy

I still to this day do not understand how everyone believes the fact that teams have no chance of winning the title is actually a good thing.

Had this debate so many times on this board and no good argument has been made to explain this.

 

[Jono]

Also the draft and salary cap system seems to work fine in the NBA too. Now it's not as strict as the AFL, but this isn't some Australian socialist phenomenon. At the end of the day it results in different teams being able to taste the ultimate prize.

That is not just a good thing, it is the essence of sport.

 

[Jono]

By any objective measure, leagues with a salary cap are no more or less competitive than those that have none. There's just no empirical evidence to suggest that it helps unless you cherry-pick examples.

What on Earth makes you state that? I have compared elite sports before and you don't get a period of 10-15 years in any of them barring the major association footbal leagues where the same 2-4 teams win every friggin' year.

 

[Jono]

It's all hypothetical anyway, because it would rely on every soccer league in the world having a cap, which obv will never happen. But people are saying 'oh the system will never work, it can never be equal' which is wrong, look at the AFL for an example of a system which has as perfect equality as you're going to find.

That's the key point here.

Unfortunately England could never implement it because there are other major leagues playing the same code in Spain, Italy, Germany etc. So this is an argument over theory.

But that doesn't mean one should criticise the cap and wear as a badge of honour the fact that the rich teams are the ones that win all the time. It's a testament to the passion of many football fans that they follow their team so passionately despite having literally 0% chance of winning the title, unless a billionaire Arab walks in and takes over their football club of course

 

[Ausage]

Also the draft and salary cap system seems to work fine in the NBA too. Now it's not as strict as the AFL, but this isn't some Australian socialist phenomenon. At the end of the day it results in different teams being able to taste the ultimate prize.

That is not just a good thing, it is the essence of sport.

Actually the NBA is probably one of the least competetive leagues that have a salary cap. I think that's down to more relaxed laws that are easier to get around, but someone with more knowledge of the NBA could probably explain why it is. It's still more competetive than European football though.

The NFL and NHL would probably be better examples of even leagues balanced by a salary cap ourside of Australia.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah hockey is a really good example of a North American sport getting it right.

 

[benchmark00]

Mainly because the 'Nucks are in the Stanley cup finals ftr

 

[Jono]

Hmm, only partially agree Ausage. Ultimately different teams in the NBA win the titles over the long haul. That's the determinative factor.

It shows even more relaxed rules, which the NBA has, can work. Sure it won't work as well as other leagues with stricter rules, but that goes without saying.

Anyway this argument isn't necessarily against the relegation system. I don't think the relegation system means one can't have a salary cap, but that's another story.

I also think I will owe someone on CricketWeb a ****load of money if Wigan (a random team I selected a few years ago) ever win the Premiership.

I daresay my money is pretty safe.