So.......

[pantskyle]

I've always liked the idea of Dipper gauntlet which he so strongly advocated for in the fantasy cricket.

But ten swings the pendulum to far from realism to fantasy.

So is this real life or is it just fantasy?

 

[pantskyle]

Exactly what ClarkeM said.

5 team finals series is much simpler and works. But it's about activity right? Well pull a DreamTeam/Supercoach and have a finals series in the same format for the bottom 5 to keep the guys interested.

The current finals format is no good.

Don't like that idea. Bottom teams are out and they should stay out. However finding a way to shorten the finals season so the bottom teams don't have to spend too much time looking on would be preferred.

Nothing stops the sides having some private matches as well.

 

[Reardo]

I've always liked the idea of Dipper gauntlet which he so strongly advocated for in the fantasy cricket.

But ten swings the pendulum to far from realism to fantasy.

I was actually joking. I was making fun of my clubs inability to participate in finals due to our ineptness, a top ten could be our only chance of tasting finals action. But I'm glad to hear you have considered it.

 

[boncer34]

I knew you were joking but I've always harboured a desire to implement the gauntlet. Just purely for the chaotic fall out.

 

[akkaps]

AFL Finals system: for 6 teams

Week 1:
Qualifying Final 1: 1st v 4th
Qualifying Final 2: 2nd v 3rd

Week 2:
Semi Final 1: Loser of Qualifying Final 1 v 5th
Semi Final 2: Loser of Qualifying Final 2 v 6th

Week 3:
Preliminary Final 1: Winner of Qualifying Final 1 v Winner of Semi Final 2
Preliminary Final 2: Winner of Qualifying Final 2 v Winner of Semi Final 1

Week 4:
Grand Final: Winner of Qualifying Final 1 v Winner of Qualifying Final 2


Two week finals: for 4 teams

Week 1:
Semi Final 1: 1st v 4th
Semi Final 2: 2nd v 3rd

Week 2:
Grand Final: Winner of Semi Final 1 v Semi Final 2


One week final: for 2 teams

Week 1
Grand Final: 1st v 2nd


No finals series: Minor premiership winner is crowned winner


Three week finals: for 5 teams

Week 1:
Qualifying Final: 2nd v 3rd
Elimination Final: 4th v 5th

Week 2:
Semi Final 1: 1st v Winner of Qualifying Final
Semi Final 2: Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of Elimination Final

Week 3:
Grand Final: Winner of Semi Final 1 v Winner of Semi Final 2


District Footy finals: for 4 teams

Week 1:
Qualifying Final: 1st v 2nd
Elimination Final: 3rd v 4th

Week 2:
Preliminary Final: Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of Elimination Final

Week 3:
Grand Final: Winner of Qualifying Final v Winner of Preliminary Final

 

[Karnezis_13]

Um... let's see...

Brainstormed for a while and ran into a number of problems (six is an odd number of teams to work around) and this will probably not work as the Wild Card Final delves a bit into the realms of fantasy (would be an exciting match though!)!...

6 Team Finals Series patented by Karny
Week 1
QF1: 1st vs 2nd
EF1: 5th vs 6th
3rd, 4th have first week off

Week 2
SF1: Winner of EF1 vs Loser of QF1
SF2: 3rd vs 4th

Mid-Week Madness (Thursday game)
WCF1: Loser of SF1 vs Loser of SF2

Week 3
PF1: Winner of SF1 vs Winner of WCF1
PF2: Winner of QF1 vs Winner of SF2

Week 4:GF: Winner of PF1 vs Winner of PF2

Description: The main goal was to condense the finals series into 4 weeks, have 2 preliminary finals and make sure that as many games as possible were cut-throat. The only issues with this is that Teams 1 & 2 still get a relatively soft run through the finals.
OK upon reflection it's a ridiculous idea but let's post it anyway. It's not as if the current finals series is miles better. *or maybe it is

 

[Dipper]

I've always liked the idea of Dipper gauntlet which he so strongly advocated for in the fantasy cricket.

But ten swings the pendulum to far from realism to fantasy.

Ah yes the gauntlet, slightly misleading to say that I strongly advocated it, the reality was that in a 12 team comp I think it was that we had a top 8 finals system or something stupid and I said well we might as well make everyone play finals and have last play 1st etc.

I was actually advocating a smaller finals series so with sarcasm being my favourite means to make a point this is where my apparent strong support for it came in.


Do you also remember how Frodo and numerous other goons didn't want to let newbies like you into the comp and their support was strengthening and then I entered the fray and gave Frodo a spray and nek minut everyone was like yeah let them in, let's have a load of new teams. You used to like me then when I was your hero. The funny thing is in hindsight Frodo, perhaps for the only time ever, was shown to be correct.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

So is this real life or is it just fantasy?

It was all a dream.

 

[ClarkeM]

This can't be this complex. Surely not.

 

[Papa Juggs]

If this is about participation we should go with 8 team finals and double chances for the top4 just like AFL.

The problem is triple chances are ****ing stupid and braindead. It makes finals pretty much dead rubbers.

 

[iBeng]

My team didnt get 5 chances to make the finals after not making the finals.

 

[Ljp86]

Top six stays.

Why?

Well other then because I say so its because in a game relying heavily on activity then we will always look to keep the maximum participants involved as long as possible whilst trying to maintain realism.

Six leans more to participation then realism slightly but guess what? Its fantasy so we'll always lean towards participation over realism.

The issue isn't the amount of sides in the finals, I think most posters in here are happy with a top six. The real problem lies in the current format.

The current format as it stands is farcical to say the least. For starters after having played an 18-round season where the top sides have been fighting tooth and nail to gain a top four or top two spot we have qualifying finals in week one where effectively the "seeding" of sides is reshuffled in the first week. This makes the previous 18 weeks of the season virtually a complete waste of time as the wins they gained in the home and away season effectively count for very little.

You've also got the fact that while the finals system is favoured towards the sides that finish higher on the ladder (as it should be), there is way too much favour leaning towards those teams. A side should not be allowed to lose two games in a row and still be in the finals in week three, that's just a very poor structure. The teams in previous seasons who have gone out in straight sets have a right to feel dudded right now with the present format in place.

As the acting administrator when this was put in place I was very disappointed to see this system voted in despite putting up three pretty good systems of my own on there which I thought were quite fair and reasonable. There were also others that have been expressed that would have done a reasonable job as well. If anything, the six captains that voted for this idiotic format are the ones to blame. Given that I was only acting at the time it would have been inappropriate for me to intervene and change something that was the choice of the majority.

I think that after seeing this format in place for a season that we can get rid of it once the season ends. It was an experiment, we tried it and it failed miserably. I will certainly be pushing for a different format.

 

[beez]

"I was ultimately responsible for the situation that eventuated but I am in no way at fault." - Where have we heard that recently?

 

[okeydoke7]

Top 6 is great, finals system sucks.

Top 6 keeps more teams active and keeps most teams in contention for longer. Being a fantasy compy, it promotes activity.

Finals system...I've said it before...Follow the fancy graph:

 

[Ljp86]

Top 6 is great, finals system sucks.

Top 6 keeps more teams active and keeps most teams in contention for longer. Being a fantasy compy, it promotes activity.

Finals system...I've said it before...Follow the fancy graph:

Not bad but not enough advantage for third. Harsh for third place to have to play in an elimination final first up.

 

[Eth]

The issue isn't the amount of sides in the finals, I think most posters in here are happy with a top six. The real problem lies in the current format.

The current format as it stands is farcical to say the least. For starters after having played an 18-round season where the top sides have been fighting tooth and nail to gain a top four or top two spot we have qualifying finals in week one where effectively the "seeding" of sides is reshuffled in the first week. This makes the previous 18 weeks of the season virtually a complete waste of time as the wins they gained in the home and away season effectively count for very little.

You've also got the fact that while the finals system is favoured towards the sides that finish higher on the ladder (as it should be), there is way too much favour leaning towards those teams. A side should not be allowed to lose two games in a row and still be in the finals in week three, that's just a very poor structure. The teams in previous seasons who have gone out in straight sets have a right to feel dudded right now with the present format in place.

As the acting administrator when this was put in place I was very disappointed to see this system voted in despite putting up three pretty good systems of my own on there which I thought were quite fair and reasonable. There were also others that have been expressed that would have done a reasonable job as well. If anything, the six captains that voted for this idiotic format are the ones to blame. Given that I was only acting at the time it would have been inappropriate for me to intervene and change something that was the choice of the majority.

I think that after seeing this format in place for a season that we can get rid of it once the season ends. It was an experiment, we tried it and it failed miserably. I will certainly be pushing for a different format.

Good argument. Should've posted it when we were voting.

 

[okeydoke7]

Not bad but not enough advantage for third. Harsh for third place to have to play in an elimination final first up.

A little harsh, but if we go with a top 6 there will be sacrifices. This system does favour the top 2 teams and gives sensational reward for a top 2 finish. The other 4 that make up the 6 battle it out in a last man standing style for a chance at a spot in the grand final.

I don't personally see the need for 3rd to get a big advantage. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. In a top 8 system obviously the top 4 can be rewarded. A lot of international sports use this system. I doubt any use our current one

 

[pantskyle]

A little harsh, but if we go with a top 6 there will be sacrifices. This system does favour the top 2 teams and gives sensational reward for a top 2 finish. The other 4 that make up the 6 battle it out in a last man standing style for a chance at a spot in the grand final.

I don't personally see the need for 3rd to get a big advantage. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. In a top 8 system obviously the top 4 can be rewarded. A lot of international sports use this system. I doubt any use our current one

Holy shit I agree with you.

 

[okeydoke7]

Holy shit I agree with you.

Is the sky falling?

Let's celebrate. What do you drink?

 

[Ljp86]

A little harsh, but if we go with a top 6 there will be sacrifices. This system does favour the top 2 teams and gives sensational reward for a top 2 finish. The other 4 that make up the 6 battle it out in a last man standing style for a chance at a spot in the grand final.

I don't personally see the need for 3rd to get a big advantage. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. In a top 8 system obviously the top 4 can be rewarded. A lot of international sports use this system. I doubt any use our current one

I understand where you are coming from but to have a side such as the Wonders who were basically top two all year have virtually no advantage over a team such as the Swamprats who made the finals on percentage is really not that fair. As you pointed out, teams 1-4 in a top eight system get a double chance which is 50%. So what not have teams 1-3 in a top six system afforded the same right?

 

[pantskyle]

Is the sky falling?

Let's celebrate. What do you drink?

I'm a wonder now so a rum please.

 

[Andonis1997]

Next year we should include a wildcard position in the finals to the team who wears the uniform with the most pride.
As you know, in qooty, it's all about the uniform!

Maybe another one for the team who drinks the most beer.

Maybe another one for shits and gigs?

And leave it at a top 9 to piss off the Roys.

 

[okeydoke7]

I understand where you are coming from but to have a side such as the Wonders who were basically top two all year have virtually no advantage over a team such as the Swamprats who made the finals on percentage is really not that fair. As you pointed out, teams 1-4 in a top eight system get a double chance which is 50%. So what not have teams 1-3 in a top six system afforded the same right?

Because 3 is an odd number, and so it results in an odd finals format.

If we had 3, then 4th would have no advantage over 5th. The line must be drawn and my personal taste is the top 2 teams getting an advantage, we open the finals up to another 4 teams on top of that, and no team has the chance of losing twice and still playing in a grand final.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

3, is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the magic number.

 

[Ljp86]

Because 3 is an odd number, and so it results in an odd finals format.

If we had 3, then 4th would have no advantage over 5th. The line must be drawn and my personal taste is the top 2 teams getting an advantage, we open the finals up to another 4 teams on top of that, and no team has the chance of losing twice and still playing in a grand final.

Not really, one of the systems I threw up was a 5 vs 6 elimination final before reverting to a final five format for there on in. It's simple, effective and gives all teams a fair chance.