Finals system

[Doss]

I hope the irony of a Melbourne supporter saying "the top four don't deserve anything come finals!" isn't lost on people.

And yes, as an Essendon supporter, if I said the same thing I would fully expect to likewise cop stick.

 

[Dan26]

.
If you're going to have a full knock out finals system, you may as well not have a home and away season at all as I see it.

This is a ridiculous mindset that you need to get rid of. This stupid idea that a double chance is the ONLY way to reward a top team is ridiculous. You are essentially saying that the NFL season may as well not have a H&A season. There are 3 main ways to reward top teams under a total knockout system, such as the final-10.

1.) The top teams get home ground advantage
2.) The top team always plays the lowest (and therefore weakest) remaining seeded team.
3.) The top teams have a week off.

Now take Collingwood this year. They are not guaranteed a double chance. They have a 50%chance of "using" a double chance, and a 50% chance of having a week off. One or the other.

That 100% is split 50-50.

But what if that 100% was split 100-0?

In other words, they had a 100% chance of having a week off. In other words, the bye was guaranteed. A week off.

If that was the case you don't need the double chance. You can just guarantee them the week off instead and that is basically how the NFL system works.

So, don't look at 2011 as Collingwood getting a double chance (because they don't get one). Look at it this way:

AFL system
Collingwood:
50% chance of using a double chance
50% chance of having a week off (therefore no double chance)

The bold is what has happened in 2011

Final 10
Collingwood:
0% chance of using double chance (because none exists)
100% chance of having a week off (therefore no double chance)

The bold is obviously what would happen because it is guaranteed

All that happens under the final-10 is that the "50%" chance they had of using a double chance is taken away and added to the 50% chance of having a week off, therefore creating a 100% guaranteed week off.

 

[demondavey]

I hope the irony of a Melbourne supporter saying "the top four don't deserve anything come finals!" isn't lost on people.

And yes, as an Essendon supporter, if I said the same thing I would fully expect to likewise cop stick.

Why bring Melbourne into it? LOL? Have you got nothing else to argue but that? Fickle tactic mate, fickle and hollow

 

[Doss]

Why bring Melbourne into it? LOL? Have you got nothing else to argue but that? Fickle tactic mate, fickle and hollow

Ha, yeah that was a bit below the belt, sorry.

Apart from that, I'm done here. No use trying to argue against someone who takes it upon himself to tell people how they should think.

Dan26, you have your right to an opinion and every right to express it. But so does everyone else. No need to treat them like idiots if their opinion happens to differ.

 

[Dan26]

Ha, yeah that was a bit below the belt, sorry.

Apart from that, I'm done here. No use trying to argue against someone who takes it upon himself to tell people how they should think.

Dan26, you have your right to an opinion and every right to express it. But so does everyone else. No need to treat them like idiots if their opinion happens to differ.

I want you to acknowledge a couple of things before you go:

1.) That a double chance is NOT the only way to reward the top teams.

2.) That Collingwood do NOT get a double chance in 2011.

3.) That by making the week off 100% guranteed (instead of 50% like it is now for Collingwood) this allows the double chance to be dispensed with.

 

[RogerC]

Two choices there Dos:

A. Bang your head against the brick wall for another 48 hours
B. Let Dan pretend that he's won.

For the record, the answers to those are:

1. Der.
2. Yes they did, you don't understand what the term 'double chance' means.
3. That's a complete misrepresentation of the current system.

However, he has argued against 2 and 3 for years now, so nothing's likely to change.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

What is wrong with that? It puts more pressure on them to win but they would only get eliminated if 1 and 2 also lose, which is unlikely really.

It just gives top 4 teams more of an incentive to win! You win and your fine, and your through to the next round with a home final? More incentive means more pressure, and sometimes that is better because teams outside top 4 may match up better on their opponent, hence creating a really tight contest.

I agree about the scheduling, but surely they REALLY should not be the issue. It just creates so much more chance and opportunity for non top 4 sides. The top 4 sides don't deserve anything come finals! The finals should be cut throat and if the top 4 sides can't win then bad luck! Look at Adelaide in 98? Prob the best example of a side fighting against the odds to come out and win under the hardest circumstances, by FAR the most deserving premier that year.

All fair comments....as said I didnt mind the old system except for a couple of flaws I mentioned...none of them apart from logistics being deal breakers.

The current system offers better, closer games to watch too. I think this current McIntyre system is slightly superior to the old one.

 

[swiftdog]

I'm not a big advocate of the double chance but our current finals system would be ok if you could guarentee home finals. As 10/18 teams are based in Victoria the chances of a home ground advantage being utilised are less than 50%. No difference between finishing 1st and 4th? Half of the finals teams get the same advantage? That's unfair on the top two teams. The current finals system relies too much on there being Victorian vs non-Victorian team matchups.

I'm arguing for Dan's system because the top 2 deserve to have a better advantage than what they currently do. Most years the top 1-2 teams are seen to be the only ones that can win it with occasionally a third team being a possibility, the rest are an ok chance or a smokie. Barring the inclusion of an interstate team, the top 2 teams ONLY get an advantage relative to teams 5 - 8. An advantage relative to teams 3 - 4 can only occur through luck and the performance of other teams.

With Dan's system the top 2 get a guarenteed advantage relative to the rest of the finals teams year in, year out. This advantage gets magnified if they're lucky enough to get a true home ground advantage. It can be said that teams 3-6 get the same or similar advantage, but better that than teams 1-4 getting the same or similar advantage (the minor premier gets a trophy for a reason).

In all, in week 1 of the finals, barring the inclusion of an interstate team, the top 2 teams are likely NOT to have an advantage relative to the teams that they are playing against. To me, this seems to harsh on the top 2 teams who have been the best all year but, by chance, may not be rewarded as such.

There's clearly a viable alternative to this which Dan has pointed out. Why keep a system in place that can only reward the top 2 teams by chance when a system can be put in place that rewards the top 2 every year without fail?

 

[Dan26]

2. Yes they did, you don't understand what the term 'double chance' means.

No they didn't get one.

Depending on whether Collingwood win or lose in the first week, one of two things can happen.

1. They get to use a double chance, or

2. They get a week off.

Collingwood got a week off. They did not, and will not receive a second chance for losing, should they be defeated this week or next.

If you are 100% guaranteed a week off (instead of the current 50% chance of having a week off) the double chance is not required.

People seem to foget what finals are about - WINNING.

 

[swiftdog]

Two choices there Dos:

A. Bang your head against the brick wall for another 48 hours
B. Let Dan pretend that he's won.

For the record, the answers to those are:

1. Der.
2. Yes they did, you don't understand what the term 'double chance' means.
3. That's a complete misrepresentation of the current system.

However, he has argued against 2 and 3 for years now, so nothing's likely to change.

Double chance usually means that you get 2 chances. So if you screw up the first chance (i.e. lose a game/chance) then you get a second chance. It's not a misinterpretation of the current system, it's just the wording of "double chance" that throws people. There is no "double chance" in the current system. However, there is "insurance". By finishing top 4 you guarentee yourself passage into at least the second week of finals; you insure yourself if you lose in week 1. As the top 6 teams get a week off in week 1 of the finals in Dan's ten team knockout they also have the same insurance of getting through to at least week 2 of the finals.

 

[Dan26]

I'm not a big advocate of the double chance but our current finals system would be ok if you could guarentee home finals. As 10/18 teams are based in Victoria the chances of a home ground advantage being utilised are less than 50%. No difference between finishing 1st and 4th? Half of the finals teams get the same advantage? That's unfair on the top two teams. The current finals system relies too much on there being Victorian vs non-Victorian team matchups.

I'm arguing for Dan's system because the top 2 deserve to have a better advantage than what they currently do. Most years the top 1-2 teams are seen to be the only ones that can win it with occasionally a third team being a possibility, the rest are an ok chance or a smokie. Barring the inclusion of an interstate team, the top 2 teams ONLY get an advantage relative to teams 5 - 8. An advantage relative to teams 3 - 4 can only occur through luck and the performance of other teams.
With Dan's system the top 2 get a guarenteed advantage relative to the rest of the finals teams year in, year out. This advantage gets magnified if they're lucky enough to get a true home ground advantage. It can be said that teams 3-6 get the same or similar advantage, but better that than teams 1-4 getting the same or similar advantage (the minor premier gets a trophy for a reason).

In all, in week 1 of the finals, barring the inclusion of an interstate team, the top 2 teams are likely NOT to have an advantage relative to the teams that they are playing against. To me, this seems to harsh on the top 2 teams who have been the best all year but, by chance, may not be rewarded as such.

There's clearly a viable alternative to this which Dan has pointed out. Why keep a system in place that can only reward the top 2 teams by chance when a system can be put in place that rewards the top 2 every year without fail?

Exactly. The top 6 all have the week off, but only 1st and 2nd get the opportunity to play opponents who played in the first week.

3,4,5,6 all have a week off, but they play each other, so they don't have the same advantage.

Surely 1st getting the opportunity to play at home, versus either 8th 9th or 10th after a week off, and after their opponent had to play the week before is more advantageous than playing 4th and getting a double chance if you lose.

And what's better is that if 1st do win and progress to the Prelim, they get to play the lowest remaining seeded team. So, if the top 4 all progress, they will play 4th. Collingwood are playing 3rd this week, which is unfair. Geelong have the easier match this week.

Finals aren't about getting second chances for losing - they are about winning and progessing.

 

[Dan26]

As the top 6 teams get a week off in week 1 of the finals in Dan's ten team knockout they also have the same insurance of getting through to at least week 2 of the finals.

That's what I was trying to explain in my usual convoluted way.

Under the current system it's not really a double chance. It's a double chance OR a week off.

A 50% chance of one and a 50% chance of the other. But not both. You get one or the other.

But with the knockout final-10, the week off is guaranteed.

Instead of that 100% being split 50-50, it is just split 100-0 with a 100% chance of having a week off. The week off exists INSTEAD of the double chance.

 

[brett15]

Not too much wrong with current system, it's certainly heaps better then the old McIntyre 8 (currently NRL) final 8 system which has notable flaws.

Could it be better? Possibly.

To throw a random idea out there:

Final 8 is broken into two pools
Pool 1 = 1,4,5,8 (Coll, WCE, Carl, Ess)
Pool 2 = 2,3,6,7 (Geel, Haw, Stk, Syd)

- For the first 3 finals, each finalist plays each team in their pool once.
- The higher ranked team hosts the final.
- Teams are then ranked by wins and percentage.
- Leader of each pool play then plays off in the Grand Final

 

[Matt_TY]

The finals system is about finding the best team that most deserves the premiership.

Not about SNARRRL DO OR DIE FINALS ALL THE TIME against the might of ... 9th position.

Not about rewarding mediocrity by admitting 10th place into the finals.

Not about adding more teams that will never ever have a shot at it.

Not about the no-doubt engrossing contest that would be 1st vs. 10th.

Not about the top two teams not having to prove they were deserving of those positions with a competitive game against another top-four team.

If they lose they are sent into a repechage, which is all week two is. That's a system so common in sports around the world that we even have a French name for it.

The system, as you yourself have pointed out, has consistently rewarded the best teams whilst still providing them a series of competitive games.

Sputtering about how 1st will be guaranteed a week off while we all watch the rejects play to see who will be the least rejected will not change that.

Nor will getting all 51st-statey about the NFL.

The current finals system works for the intended purpose of the finals, which is to find the team that most deserves to win the finals. That's all it needs to do.

But I can see I'm obviously wasting my time here, so feel free to continue your plan to introduce pads and helmets to the sport by 2040. I'll be elsewhere.

 

[Koutafidamedis]

I would prefer the knockout final 10 than the one we have now for the reasons Dan has stated. But the way Dan argues his point makes me want to disagree with him.

 

[Red Crow]

I want you to acknowledge a couple of things before you go:

1.) That a double chance is NOT the only way to reward the top teams.

2.) That Collingwood do NOT get a double chance in 2011.

3.) That by making the week off 100% guranteed (instead of 50% like it is now for Collingwood) this allows the double chance to be dispensed with.

I want you to acknowledge something:

People are allowed to have differing opinions to you.

Do you acknowledge this?

I seriously get angry reading your posts year after year. I promised myself I wouldn't respond, but I just can't help myself.

Firstly, Collingwood did get a second chance. They just didn't need it. Nowhere does it actually state that a team getting the "double chance" must have the ability to use it throughout the whole finals series, as you seem to think it should mean. Every man and his dog knows the double chance only applies to week one. If you lose, you get rewarded for being a top team and get another chance in week two. But from there, for all teams, its cut-throat.

People like this. It means that all you're hard work over a 22 week season can't suddenly come unstuck in the first week after a freak result. And the only reasons you can give for why this shouldn't be the case are:

1/ You get home ground advantage against a weaker side so you should 100% win anyway, and;

2/ Other sports around the world use total knockout, so we should too.

Firstly, we are not other sports, we are Australian Football. We are allowed do things our way and not follow the rest of the world. Secondly, home ground advantage counts for very little in AFL. There are 9 teams in Melbourne playing out of two stadiums, and the 10th team in Victoria has their own stadium, but aren't allowed to play finals there. So any home ground advantage that NFL teams might enjoy are thrown out the window if Carlton and Collingwood play each other.

So in light of the above, and that a vast majority of people in this thread seem to like the existing format which rewards the best teams over the year with the best chance of winning the flag, I'll ask again:

Do you acknowledge that people are allowed to have differing opinions to you?

 

[RogerC]

No they didn't get one.

Depending on whether Collingwood win or lose in the first week, one of two things can happen.

1. They get to use a double chance, or

2. They get a week off.

See, I was right. My point was that you didn't understand what the term means. Or perhaps I should be a little clearer here; you're being wilfully obtuse. I have decided to go with the generally accepted definition of the term "double chance", the one everyone understands it to be. This definition I prefer to call "reality".

You have gone with your own version of the term; one in which it appears to have a life of its own, and can be invoked whenever a team wants to. This definition I call "fantasy".

If I accept your version, I can't really argue that you're wrong, can I? But I'm not going to accept your version, because your version is a lunatic one.

 

[Matthew2708]

This is exactly what it says on the AFL Website about the 2000-2011 finals system.

"A simplified final eight system was introduced. In the first week all eight teams play. The games are 1st v 4th, 2nd v 3rd, 5th v 8th and 6th v 7th. The top four sides on the ladder after the home and away season are guaranteed a double chance after the first week of the finals, while sides finishing 5th to 8th need to win every game to win the Premiership.

The winners of the games 1st v 4th, and 2nd v 3rd proceed straight to the preliminary final in week 3. The losers of those games receive the double chance and play in the semi-finals in week 2. The games 5th v 8th and 6th v 7th will be cut-throat qualifying finals with the losers being eliminated and the winners proceeding to the semi-finals.

The remaining three weeks of the finals are cut-throat. The winners of the semi-final in week 2 proceed to the preliminary final, while the losers are eliminated.

There are two preliminary finals played with the winners both proceeding to the AFL Grand Final. The losers are eliminated."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/97498/default.aspx

Read the Bold writing.

 

[Matthew2708]

An interesting system in the early 1900's as well. (About the Minor Premier's double chance).

Let's say if Collingwood finished 1st.
Essendon finished 2nd.

In the Grand Final, if Essendon had beaten Collingwood (The minor premiers); Collingwood could actually challenge Essendon to a further match to decide the premiership. An actual double chance for the Minor Premiers.

 

[RogerC]

You could alternatively bold this bit:

"A simplified final eight system was introduced. In the first week all eight teams play. The games are 1st v 4th, 2nd v 3rd, 5th v 8th and 6th v 7th. The top four sides on the ladder after the home and away season are guaranteed a double chance after the first week of the finals, while sides finishing 5th to 8th need to win every game to win the Premiership.

The winners of the games 1st v 4th, and 2nd v 3rd proceed straight to the preliminary final in week 3. The losers of those games receive the double chance and play in the semi-finals in week 2. The games 5th v 8th and 6th v 7th will be cut-throat qualifying finals with the losers being eliminated and the winners proceeding to the semi-finals.

The remaining three weeks of the finals are cut-throat. The winners of the semi-final in week 2 proceed to the preliminary final, while the losers are eliminated.

There are two preliminary finals played with the winners both proceeding to the AFL Grand Final. The losers are eliminated."

I guess Dan could argue the difference between "guaranteed" and "receiving" if he wanted to. But it would be hair-splitting.

 

[Matthew2708]

You could alternatively bold this bit:



I guess Dan could argue the difference between "guaranteed" and "receiving" if he wanted to. But it would be hair-splitting.

Yeah, I realised that part. But oh well. The afl website should have re-worded it better.

 

[Red Crow]

You could alternatively bold this bit:



I guess Dan could argue the difference between "guaranteed" and "receiving" if he wanted to. But it would be hair-splitting.

Put the two together and you get:

Guaranteed only if you lose week one.

Can't be more clear-cut than that.

 

[swiftdog]

So in light of the above, and that a vast majority of people in this thread seem to like the existing format which rewards the best teams over the year with the best chance of winning the flag[/I]

2000: Essendon (21 - 1) vs Kangaroos (14 - 8)
2001: Essendon (17 - 5) vs Richmond (15 - 7)
2007: Geelong (18 - 4) vs Kangaroos (14 - 8)
2008: Geelong (21 - 1) vs St.Kilda (13 - 9)
2009: St.Kilda (20 - 2) vs Collingwood (15 - 7)
2010: Collingwood (17-4-1) vs Western Bulldogs (14 - 8)

Care to explain how the best teams in these years (without interstate teams) are being rewarded? In most year's there's a clear difference in ability between 1st and 4th yet they're rewarded the same way. A team with a 13-9 record gets EXACTLY the same advantage as a team that goes 21-1. One year later a team that goes 15-7 gets a game at their home ground (14 times played there for the year) versus a 20-2 team that played 1 game at the ground for the year. Yep, our system works fine. Why bother finishing on top when you can finish 4th and get an even better advantage than 1st?

 

[Dan26]

Firstly, Collingwood did get a second chance?[/I]

No they didn't. If Collinwood lose any final from here on in they will not receive a second chance.

They just didn't need it.

Oh really? Do you still think they "don't need it" if they lose this Friday night?

Nowhere does it actually state that a team getting the "double chance" must have the ability to use it throughout the whole finals series, as you seem to think it should mean.

I never said that. I said that under the current system the top team rarely gets a double chance for losing. The double chance goes to 3rd and 4th usually.

The top 4 teams get EITHER a second chance OR a week off. One or the other, but never both.

Hawthorn and West Coast received a second chance

Collingwood and Geelong received a week off.

I'm suggesting that under a knockout final-10, that if the week off is 100% guranteed, you then don't need a second chance. Currently Collingwood have to fight for the week off. They have a 50% chance of getting it, or a 50% chance of using the double chance.

I am suggesting that a 100% guaranteed week off is an exact mathematicla replacement for a double chance. Instead of a 50% chance of using a double chance and a 50% chance of having a weke off, you have a 0% chance of using a double chance and a 100% chance of having a week off.

People like this.

I would argue that people like and enjoy the knockout finals far more than finals where you get a second chance for losing. You're speaking about the whole system, which people are culturally used to. I believe the public would totally fall in love with a knockout final-10.

It means that all you're hard work over a 22 week season can't suddenly come unstuck in the first week after a freak result.

This is the argument right here that angers me. Finals are about WINNING. If Geelong lost to Collingwood in the 2007 Prelim, that would have been a "freak result" and Geelong would have bene eliminated after one loss. How is a total knockout system any different? It's exactly the same thing.

In 2007 for example Geelong could be eliminated in their 2nd and 3rd finals with no second chance? So why not their first final? PROVIDED they played the lowest seeded team (8th). If 1st lose to 8th they don't deserve to progress, just like if Geelong had lost to 6th-placed Collingwood in the 2007 Prelim they wouldn't have deserved to progress. It's exactly the same thing.

Good teams will be prepared on the day. They will PERFORM ON THE DAY. They will do what good teams do, and they will do what finals demand.... and that is win. Finals are about winning, and progressing. Finals aren't about getting second chances for losing.

Do you acknowledge that people are allowed to have differing opinions to you?

I'm not interested in discussing that, because you are getting into personal characteristics instead of worrying about the topic. Maybe I do argue my point in a very detailed and persuasive way. I don't care. That's my choice and my style. The most important thing is to stick to topic. Argue the topic not the poster.

 

[RogerC]

2000: Essendon (21 - 1) vs Kangaroos (14 - 8)
2001: Essendon (17 - 5) vs Richmond (15 - 7)
2007: Geelong (18 - 4) vs Kangaroos (14 - 8)
2008: Geelong (21 - 1) vs St.Kilda (13 - 9)
2009: St.Kilda (20 - 2) vs Collingwood (15 - 7)
2010: Collingwood (17-4-1) vs Western Bulldogs (14 - 8)

Care to explain how the best teams in these years (without interstate teams) are being rewarded? In most year's there's a clear difference in ability between 1st and 4th yet they're rewarded the same way. A team with a 13-9 record gets EXACTLY the same advantage as a team that goes 21-1. One year later a team that goes 15-7 gets a game at their home ground (14 times played there for the year) versus a 20-2 team that played 1 game at the ground for the year. Yep, our system works fine. Why bother finishing on top when you can finish 4th and get an even better advantage than 1st?

Swiftdog, what are you arguing for? You've lost me. I thought you were arguing for a knockout system. In the examples above it'd be even worse. 1st would play something like 9th in week 2, with both after the same reward, survival.

It's really quite simple. In each of those cases above, 1st has a relatively easy opponent, and 4th has a relatively difficult opponent. Which is exactly the sort of thing Dan's been banging on about all this time.

And in every one of those examples, the team finishing first won. So it's not exactly a recommendation for finishing 4th, is it? In the unlikely event that 4th does beat 1st, then 1st get a second chance.

***

I'm not particularly against a final ten system like the one Dan proposed, if it goes to final 10. It's not a bad one at all. But the argument you're putting forward up there isn't furthering anyone's argument.