10 Teams for the SANFL

I know this has been discussed many times on many sites, but if the Tassie league can support 10 teams surely the SANFL could.
Demographics have changed radically over the years and there must be a good case to introduce another side.

I realise the Tassie league does not compare to the SANFL ( no disrespect intended) but a weekly football program of 5 games an no byes must surely be better than the format we have now?

Some say we need to go to 8 teams and we've got to many teams on the west side of town. I think we need to 10 teams with a team in the foot hills maybe or a team some where between North Adelaide and Central.

On the last occasion that the SANFL played Tasmania they were well and truly belted by Tassie - maybe that is why they didnt want to play them again?

North Eastern Suburbs is the way to go IMO. TTG, Modbury, Golden Grove or Hope Valley could submit applications. Boundaries would have re-zoned as Norwood would lose a large area.

On a side note:
The TSL is trying really hard to promote itself as the community's premier competition in a bit to get more support from the public, but is struggling as people over here much prefer to support their local side against other local teams. Real tribal stuff if you know what I mean.

IMO the TSL has 2 teams too many!

8 Teams would be my preference, but just how you contrive that scenario, I couldn't hazard a guess.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:8 Teams would be my preference, but just how you contrive that scenario, I couldn't hazard a guess.

So you think Port Magpies might survive?

I'm not 'trolling' by the way. Serious question.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:8 Teams would be my preference, but just how you contrive that scenario, I couldn't hazard a guess.

Yes this would be my preference also, maybe another merger.
I really think the time has past to go up to 10 teams again. Most of the 9 current teams struggle year in year out for money and to add in one more team would only stretch the purse strings of the SANFL even tighter.
Oh I forgot to mention the noose around the SANFL's neck that has cost millions--goes by the name of Power Failure.

Also, what would the cost be to another club joining the SANFL.

Captain Centrals wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:8 Teams would be my preference, but just how you contrive that scenario, I couldn't hazard a guess.

So you think Port Magpies might survive?

I'm not 'trolling' by the way. Serious question.

I'm not really sure. Back in 1997, I would have kicked them out. They decided to enter into the AFL, and another club Port Magpies took their place, no questions asked, almost as if it was their devine right.

However, I doubt I would want Port Adelaide out of the competition these days. As I said, I really don't know how I would contrive to have 8 teams rather than 9, I'd just prefer 8.

Thinking about it, the SANFL might garner more supporters if they introduced a couple of regional sides wher support might be more partisan.

Looking at the demographics, Whyalla, Mount Gambier, Mount Barker, Victor Harbour, Gawler, TTG areas could all support an SANFL side drawing on current crowd levels of 3,000.

It would also make the SANFL a truly State League as opposed to a suburban Adeliade league. Whether exisiting clubs could relocated is another issue but it wouldn't take too much imagination to "thin out" the Adelaide based clubs when you consider the close proximity some have to each other. That close proximity only dilutes the local supporter base and whilst it makes it easy for away fans, it does nothing for the overall attendances.

I think the problem with another side is finance.

It's a very costly business to run a league side and a new team would have to have a solid pokie venue and be able to finance junior teams as well.

Most teams are already running at a loss and I can't see another team being viable, not even considering the talent pool.

I detest bye rounds so as long as it’s an even number of teams I’ll be happy.
BUT, and like Bertha and her Butt sisters, it’s a bloody big BUT, I’m gonna throw a spanner in the works here and upset the purists.

If we go to 10 teams I’d like to modify our game slightly to save money and concentrate the available talent to help regain an open, less congested, non-defensive/flooding style, that to my mind, is destroying the best game on earth as a spectacle.

With 10 teams I’d reduce the number of on field players to 15 with perhaps only 3, or maybe 4 on the bench. Each centre bounce would see 5 forwards evenly spaced inside their 50m line, the same for the defensive 5. That leaves 2 wingmen outside the centre square and a centre, ruckman and rover to compete for the ruck.

An 8 team competition could remain as now, however for reasons of economy, congestion, flooding, scoring and spectacle, I’d go for 16 on ground and again 3 or 4 interchange players.

All very radical to some, I know, but I assume this thread is dealing in theoreticals, so I’m just ‘spitballing’ ideas that have been bouncing around in this decrepit vacuum that I laughingly call a brain.


Luv,
Sabre.

Sabre, your thoughts are very commendable and yes, very theoretical. I hate having byes also and i'm sure all of us on this forum do as well.