AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[Bostonian]

Not every decision has been good and AFLX was a misstep clearly. But most of the big decisions have been proven to be correct, especially in relation to the number of teams in the finals and the expansion of the national competition. I reiterate, the public are mostly idiots. They will reject change no matter what, and then accept that change shortly after. The idiotic backlash to the final-8 in 1994 and then the deafening silence of any criticism for the next 31 years proves it.

The fact that it has been perfectly normal to increase the amount of teams in the finals as the number of teams in the league increases shows how dumb and ignorant of history the average fan is. Since the last change to the number of teams in the finals in 1994, three have been 4 new teams added to the league if you include Tasmania.

It took only 2 extra teams to make the chang from a final-5 to a final-6
It took only 1 extra team to make the change from 6 to 8.
We've had three (and soon to be FOUR) extra teams since 1994, and people are acting like moving to 10 teams isn't both correct and predictable and historically in tune with what the AFL normally do.

The footy public are collectively pretty stupid. I don't say that with any joy. It's just an unfortunate fact.

The final 8 wasn't worth the effort. Not sure how it's considered some massive success.

Just another cash grab.

Final 6 would be more than enough for the league now. Historical results show that conclusively.

How many teams have won a flag from outside the top 3 let alone top 8?

Dogs 7th, Lions 5th? Then what? Has a team even won it from finishing 4th, 6th?

 

[Philth]

I've got a book by Alan Ball and he names the game soccer on the second page. If he's happy with it I'm happy with it. If it's your preference I'm even happier.
I used the term the world game to emphasise it was the the biggest sport in the world and changed rules regularly, like the AFL. I didn't name the sport, sport.
Tedious campaigner.

OK, ok. Jeez.

For the record, you make good points!

 

[Dan26]

The final 8 wasn't worth the effort. Not sure how it's considered some massive success.

Just another cash grab.

Final 6 would be more than enough for the league now. Historical results show that conclusively.

How many teams have won a flag from outside the top 3 let alone top 8?

Dogs 7th, Lions 5th? Then what? Has a team even won it from finishing 4th, 6th?

You seem blissfully unaware that the AFL is also a business with fans that go to games and billion dollar TV rights. The final 8 was a way to reduce dead rubbers and create more fan engagement, not that you seem to care about that.

The final-10 is just an extension of the same principles applied to the 15-team league in 1994. It's no different.

And if you don't think the bottom teams in the final-8 can win the flag, then you won't have any problem with them being in the finals. i.e they won't win the flag, but in the process you create a more interesting home and away season with less dead rubbers so it's been win-win since 1994.

Stop having a cry.

 

[bigleague]

I think the biggest danger with this 10 team finals is what it may do to the competitiveness of the second week where a superior and fresh team 5 & 6 get to play an inferior team that’s coming off an elimination final. I get that it keeps more fans engaged for longer, but there’s a risk it could be quantity over quality, and potentially set the tone for a flat finals series when it should be the crescendo of the season. I think it would have made much more sense once the league goes to 20, or even 19 teams, and the rush to introduce it seems a little desperate and reactionary for one poor year.

 

[Bostonian]

You seem blissfully unaware that the AFL is also a business with fans that go to games and billion dollar TV rights. The final 8 was a way to reduce dead rubbers and create more fan engagement, not that you seem to care about that.

The final-10 is just an extension of the same principles applied to the 15-team league in 1994. It's no different.

And if you don't think the bottom teams in the final-8 can win the flag, then you won't have any problem with them being in the finals. i.e they won't win the flag, but in the process you create a more interesting home and away season with less dead rubbers so it's been win-win since 1994.

Stop having a cry.

Ohhh so the AFL is a business now.

What business doesn't listen to its customers then?

I mean do you read what you type?

It's just utter garbage.

Finals don't need to worry about dead rubbers if you remove the dead weight in the finals by reducing the amount of average teams from it.

Yet your master plan is to add more bog average teams and create more dead rubber games under the guise of "finals".

Stop being an AFL sycophant.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Thats the same with this new system. 7-8 get home finals advantage over 9-10. Just like 5-6 used to get only home finals advantage over 7-8.

In fact this new system gives even greater advantage to 5-6 over 7-8. Making the focus of finals placing not solely about top 4 or not. Top 6 will now be a big discussion point too.

Yes that’s true. But now it’s close to impossible now for 7th and 8th to win the flag.

 

[Philth]

You seem blissfully unaware that the AFL is also a business with fans that go to games and billion dollar TV rights. The final 8 was a way to reduce dead rubbers and create more fan engagement, not that you seem to care about that.

The final-10 is just an extension of the same principles applied to the 15-team league in 1994. It's no different.

And if you don't think the bottom teams in the final-8 can win the flag, then you won't have any problem with them being in the finals. i.e they won't win the flag, but in the process you create a more interesting home and away season with less dead rubbers so it's been win-win since 1994.

Stop having a cry.

Yep - not sure if you follow the EPL at all, but it could be a 8-10 team maximum comp because the other 10 have virtually no chance of winning it. But there are still exciting games and lots of money to be made, hence the 20 teams and the whole tier system.

 

[Dan26]

Ohhh so the AFL is a business now.

What business doesn't listen to its customers then?

I mean do you read what you type?

It's just utter garbage.

Finals don't need to worry about dead rubbers if you remove the dead weight in the finals by reducing the amount of average teams from it.

Yet your master plan is to add more bog average teams and create more dead rubber games under the guise of "finals".

Stop being an AFL sycophant.

Oh give me a break. Yes businesses listen to their customers to some extent, but not on everything, otherwise there'd be no point having a management team. Hell, just let the fans be the collective CEO by your logic. Unpopular and tough decisions are vital and both business and politics. Often doing the unpopular thing is the right thing to do.

And you say: "Finals don't need to worry about dead rubbers if you remove the dead weight in the finals by reducing the amount of average teams from it."

What does that even mean? That comment makes no sense. If you reduce the lesser teams from the finasl (i.e just a final-6), you create more dead rubbers, lose more value from TV rights, have less fan engagement, and have more meaningless home and away games.

 

[Dan26]

Yep - not sure if you follow the EPL at all, but it could be a 8-10 team maximum comp because the other 10 have virtually no chance of winning it. But there are still exciting games and lots of money to be made, hence the 20 teams and the whole tier system.

The EPL has a final-10 (in a manner of speaking)

10 of the 20 positions are "relevant"

• The top 5 are for Champions League
• Two Europa Cup spots
• Three relegations spots

That's 10 out of 20 that teams are trying to make, or in the case of relegation, avoid.

That's half the positions in the 20. Having around half the positions be "relevant" whether in the EPL style or the AFL style is the key to minimizing dead rubbers.

 

[Bostonian]

Oh give me a break. Yes businesses listen to their customers to some extent, but not on everything, otherwise there'd be no point having a management team. Hell, just let the fans be the collective CEO by your logic. Unpopular and tough decisions are vital and both business and politics. Often doing the unpopular thing is the right thing to do.

And you say: "Finals don't need to worry about dead rubbers if you remove the dead weight in the finals by reducing the amount of average teams from it."

What does that even mean? That comment makes no sense. If you reduce the lesser teams from the finasl (i.e just a final-6), you create more dead rubbers, lose more value from TV rights, have less fan engagement, and have more meaningless home and away games.

What does it mean?

It means the finals are supposed to be an elite event, the best of the best. Offering the best the sport has to offer.

There are no dead rubbers when it's the best of the best. They should be all of high-level teams.

You want to add rubbish teams into that mix.

That makes no sense.

 

[Philth]

The EPL has a final-10 (in a manner of speaking)

10 of the 20 positions are "relevant"

• The top 5 are for Champions League
• Two Europa Cup spots
• Three relegations spots

That's 10 out of 20 that teams are trying to make, or in the case of relegation, avoid.

That's half the positions in the 20.

Yep, good point.

I was just referring to teams with a chance of winning the EPL premiership.

 

[Philth]

What does it mean?

It means the finals are supposed to be an elite event, the best of the best. Offering the best the sport has to offer.

There are no dead rubbers when it's the best of the best. They should be all of high-level teams.

You want to add rubbish teams into that mix.

That makes no sense.

OK, how would you feel if the Blues finished 8th this year, even though you knew deep down they weren't a chence for the flag?
You'd still be excited to see them in a final, right?

 

[Bostonian]

Imagine saying the AFL knows more about football than the average fan and average fans are idiots when they had Laura Kane who was holding a very high position in the organisation.

A literal idiot when it came to football. So is Dillon.

 

[Dan26]

What does it mean?

It means the finals are supposed to be an elite event, the best of the best. Offering the best the sport has to offer.

There are no dead rubbers when it's the best of the best. They should be all of high-level teams.

You want to add rubbish teams into that mix.

That makes no sense.

The top half are not "rubbish" teams. And if you think they are rubbish then they'll be eliminated anyway, and the best teams will be left over. So, what's the issue? You afraid of a more interesting home and away season with less dead rubbers or something? Jesus Christ man. It's just a final-10. We had a final-8 with 15 teams in 1994. Did something "terrible" happen in 1994 to make that system fail? If so, tell me.

 

[Bostonian]

OK, how would you feel if the Blues finished 8th this year, even though you knew deep down they weren't a chence for the flag?
You'd still be excited to see them in a final, right?

We didn't deserve to make any finals, we were utter garbage.

I'd rather not make them than be shown up as being undeserving of playing finals football against the best teams.

 

[Bostonian]

The top half are not "rubbish" teams. And if you think they are rubbish then they'll be eliminated anyway, and the best teams will be left over. So, what's the issue? You afraid of a more interesting home and away season with less dead rubbers or something? Jesus Christ man. It's just a final-10. We had a final-8 with 15 teams in 1994. Did something "terrible" happen in 1994 to make that system fail? If so, tell me.

So 9th and 10th aren't even close to being among the best teams. What idiots want to watch teams that low playing another meaningless game?

They have no place being involved in any end of year football.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

.

In 1994, there was massive backlash against the final-8. Within one year, no one ever complained about eight being the right number of finalists again for 31 years. The public backlash in 1994 ended up being misguided. The public was wrong.

I don’t remember what I had for breakfast so can’t recall whether there was backlash at the time. Bringing in a 5 then a 6 then an 8 was just a natural progression as the game expanded in numbers.

But I do remember that how the eight worked initially was a disaster. Your draw was dictated by not only whether you won, but by the ladder positions of the other winners in the first week of the finals.

The crows lucked out and won one of their flags this way… their finals draw from seventh got easier and they won a week off because some top sides lost.

 

[Bjo187]

Not every decision has been good and AFLX was a misstep clearly. But most of the big decisions have been proven to be correct, especially in relation to the number of teams in the finals and the expansion of the national competition. I reiterate, the public are mostly idiots. They will reject change no matter what, and then accept that change shortly after. The idiotic backlash to the final-8 in 1994 and then the deafening silence of any criticism for the next 31 years proves it.

The fact that it has been perfectly normal to increase the amount of teams in the finals as the number of teams in the league increases shows how dumb and ignorant of history the average fan is. Since the last change to the number of teams in the finals in 1994, three have been 4 new teams added to the league if you include Tasmania.

It took only 2 extra teams to make the chang from a final-5 to a final-6
It took only 1 extra team to make the change from 6 to 8.
We've had three (and soon to be FOUR) extra teams since 1994, and people are acting like moving to 10 teams isn't both correct and predictable and historically in tune with what the AFL normally do.

The footy public are collectively pretty stupid. I don't say that with any joy. It's just an unfortunate fact.

AFLX was a worthwhile idea, it just suffered from poor execution. The concept of creating an alternative version of the game for regions that only have rectangular fields (which covers about 90% of the world, plus most grounds in NSW and Queensland) made perfect sense. The mistake was launching it at the elite level before properly testing and refining it at lower levels. With more experimentation — finding the right number of players, tweaking the rules, and shaping a product that actually played well, it could’ve worked.

Instead, the AFL scrapped the idea entirely because the average fan didn’t understand why it existed and complained. Almost every major sport has multiple adapted versions to help drive participation and attract new fans — AFLX was a missed opportunity to do the same.

 

[Dan26]

So 9th and 10th aren't even close to being among the best teams. What idiots want to watch teams that low playing another meaningless game?

They have no place being involved in any end of year football.

It's not a meaningless game. It's a final. The Bulldogs who won 14 gams would have been playing in that game in 2025 and you'll be watching it, as will everyone else. You're a liar if you say you won't be

It's not like there isn't a fair, staggered set of probabilities.

1st - 18.75%
2nd - 18.75%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 18.75%
5th - 6.25%
6th - 6.25%
7th - 3.125%
8th - 3.125%
9th -3.125%
10th -3.125%
11th - 0%
12th - 0%
13th - 0%
14th - 0%
15th - 0%
16th - 0%
17th - 0%
18th - 0%

Looks pretty fair to me. 7th-10th have a chance but only a small one. 1st-4th a have SIX times the chances that 7th-10th do so it is worth fighting for those top spots.

Looks like a totally fair set of staggered probabilities to me. Going from high probabilities to low probability.

In fact, it' even fairer than the final-8 because there are now 3 sets of probabilities instead of the two. That's fairer.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

AFLX was a worthwhile idea, it just suffered from poor execution. The concept of creating an alternative version of the game for regions that only have rectangular fields (which covers about 90% of the world, plus most grounds in NSW and Queensland) made perfect sense. The mistake was launching it at the elite level before properly testing and refining it at lower levels. With more experimentation — finding the right number of players, tweaking the rules, and shaping a product that actually played well, it could’ve worked.

Instead, the AFL scrapped the idea entirely because the average fan didn’t understand why it existed and complained. Almost every major sport has multiple adapted versions to help drive participation and attract new fans — AFLX was a missed opportunity to do the same.

I stopped reading after the first five words

 

[Freddy Swift]

The top half are not "rubbish" teams. And if you think they are rubbish then they'll be eliminated anyway, and the best teams will be left over. So, what's the issue? You afraid of a more interesting home and away season with less dead rubbers or something? Jesus Christ man. It's just a final-10. We had a final-8 with 15 teams in 1994. Did something "terrible" happen in 1994 to make that system fail? If so, tell me.

So if the ‘rubbish teams are just going to be eliminated anyway’ then what’s the bloody point of having them in the finals. May as well not bother.

 

[Dan26]

So if the ‘rubbish teams are just going to be eliminated anyway’ then what’s the bloody point of having them in the finals. May as well not bother.

To keep the home and away season more interesting with less dead rubbers, more meaningful games and more fan engagement. The AFL is a business, and pretending it's not is idiocy. A final-10 makes sense, just like the final-8 made sense in the 15-team league in 1994.

 

[Bjo187]

I stopped reading after the first five words

That’s alright mate, leave the whole topic of “growing a sport” to the adults.

 

[Gavin Excell]

What does it mean?

It means the finals are supposed to be an elite event, the best of the best. Offering the best the sport has to offer.

There are no dead rubbers when it's the best of the best. They should be all of high-level teams.

You want to add rubbish teams into that mix.

That makes no sense.

Dan talks carefully about "half" making the finals as he refuses to acknowledge its the majority of teams making the finals under this awful new system

 

[Dan26]

Dan talks carefully about "half" making the finals as he refuses to acknowledge its the majority of teams making the finals under this awful new system

There are plenty of examples of more than half the teams making the finals. It happens in the NBA. It happened in the AFL in 1994. Kindly tell me the negative legacy that the 1994 season had on the sport. I want to know.

There are two alternate scenarios next year in the first week of September.

1. Week off watch no footy

or,

2. watch two games where the winners effectively play off for 7th and 8th

I know the second option must be so awful for some people. I don't know how they will cope.