Page 1 of 1
A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:33 pmby eaglehaslanded
Looking through the papers on a sunday morning makes for interesting reading. It is very clear that the current format of the S.F.L provides lopsided results week in and week out. It is time that the S.F.L go back to a 2 division competition with 8 teams in division 1 and 6 in division 2. A relegation system like the SAAFL to come into place with 2 up and 2 down at seasons end. I would like to think that they would investigate this as a possibility for as early as 2008. The current format only belittles opposition that is clearly below par.
If you go by current standings this is what you would start with:
Division 1
Brighton
Christies Beach
Cove
Happy Valley
Morphett Vale
OS Beach/Lonsdale
Port Noarlunga
Reynella
Division 2
Aldinga
Flagstaff Hill
Marion
Morhettville Park
Noarlunga
Southern Hawks
They are my thoughts and I think this would lead to a stronger more prosperous southern footy competition.
What are your thoughts.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:24 pmby FootyMad
This topics been done to death with most agreeing that no matter the what the SFL Officials would not revert back to 2 divisions, further to this some clubs would not be happy being placed in Div 2 etc.
Everyone else believes that the split is needed and very practical.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:28 pmby Shirtfront
FootyMad wrote:This topics been done to death with most agreeing that no matter the what the SFL Officials would not revert back to 2 divisions, further to this some clubs would not be happy being placed in Div 2 etc.
Everyone else believes that the split is needed and very practical.
Agreed, and to be honest who cares????? Just embrace the mostly competitive nature of the SAAFL.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:53 pmby Benchwarmer
If the SFL Board came to reason then it should only be 1 up and 1 down, with the Div. 2 premiers replacing the Div. 1 wooden spooners.
2 up and 2 down with a 6 team comp is a bit OTT.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:48 pmby eaglehaslanded
Benchwarmer wrote:If the SFL Board came to reason then it should only be 1 up and 1 down, with the Div. 2 premiers replacing the Div. 1 wooden spooners.
2 up and 2 down with a 6 team comp is a bit OTT.
Point taken benchwarmer given in my scenario it's a 6 team division 2 it would make more sense to replace 1 from each division.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:51 pmby magpie in the 80's
cut and paste, then send it to the people who should know about it.......S.F.L.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:00 pmby Benchwarmer
where it will be dismissed and deleted promptly unless there is a plan to get a couple of sides back into the fold.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:25 pmby Pag
Who would you drop from Division 1 to accommodat Edwardstown?
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:00 pmby Jayne
Pag wrote:Who would you drop from Division 1 to accommodat Edwardstown?
The SFL desperately needs an Edwardstown & possibly a PHOS Camden / Blackwood type of club to join to help with its general credibility in football circles. Towns & one more strong club join for 2008 in which the comp is run as an 18 team competetion, the top 10 are Div 1 clubs for 2009 and the bottom 8 are Div 2 for 2009, following that relegation for the Div 1 wooden spooners and promotion for the Div 2 Premiers....
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:10 pmby Benchwarmer
Hopefully something like that happens, but how easy would it be to try and lure a Meadows or a Kangarilla to get the club numbers up to 18?
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:51 pmby TOMCAT
The SFL has a lot to answer for in regards to stuffing up a great league back in the 80's. Why let clubs like McLaren Flat fold? Where was the support from the league? The Flat folded cause it had no juniors. NO JUNIORS NO CLUB. jUST DOESNT STACK UP TODAY DOES IT BOYS. Why did the SFL not fight tooth & nail to keep div 2 stalwart clubs together? They were good days with a good competition. The idea of a "rural league" was never adopted. Might have just been concentrating on the old div 1 AY?
Clubs like..
In order of dissapearance from the SFL
Macclesfield, McLaren Flat, Meadows, Kangarilla, McLaren Vale & O'Sullivan Beach.
To late for naval gazing now that the SFL is stuffed. Time too stand up & take the blame all you league directors!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:12 amby Benchwarmer
One thing in defence of the blazer brigade is that until about 5 years ago, most leagues anywhere (even the AFL with Fitzroy) didn't actively support clubs enough. There were no training courses or development programmes where clubs would get ideas on how to grow their club. The fact that a club folded or merged was an "unfortunate situation".
Nowadays, leagues are much more professional. In Victoria, the Amateurs and the five suburban leagues are all manned by offices of full-time staff ranging between 3 and 12 depending on their size. The leagues need strong clubs to keep the league vibrant and also to keep themselves in a job, so the clubs get as much assistance as possible short of throwing money at them and forcing players to shift clubs.
That said, it would be amazing for a league in this day and age (I suppose with Old Boy clubs it's slightly different in the Ammos) to allow a "junior-free" club to operate without giving them guidance on how to improve their long-term viability by coming up with junior development strategies.
Re: A revamp for the S.F.L is needed
Posted:
Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:08 pmby MatteeG
TOMCAT wrote:The SFL has a lot to answer for in regards to stuffing up a great league back in the 80's. Why let clubs like McLaren Flat fold? Where was the support from the league? The Flat folded cause it had no juniors. NO JUNIORS NO CLUB. jUST DOESNT STACK UP TODAY DOES IT BOYS. Why did the SFL not fight tooth & nail to keep div 2 stalwart clubs together? They were good days with a good competition. The idea of a "rural league" was never adopted. Might have just been concentrating on the old div 1 AY?
Clubs like..
In order of dissapearance from the SFL
Macclesfield, McLaren Flat, Meadows, Kangarilla, McLaren Vale & O'Sullivan Beach.
To late for naval gazing now that the SFL is stuffed. Time too stand up & take the blame all you league directors!!!!!!!!!!!
