No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs Only - Part 6

[BomToydd]

No way we win from 7th in 2016 if we had to play a wildcard round before that.

The only people who like the idea are guys like hutchy, mcguire and all the little AFL media dweebs who love US sports.
Ridiculous that teams with more losses than wins could be playing finals. Will just give the illusion of more teams having a chance of winning a flag when in fact it just becomes harder. Any team 7th and below will now have to win 5 finals in a row. With no pre finals bye and no week off since like mid season just winning 4 in a row will be hard enough coming up against a team in the prelim that's had a pre finals bye and the semi final week off

 

[BomToydd]

It’s gonna be us isn’t it

Can just see us finishing 7th and losing a home final against a 10th placed MCG tenant

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Let’s be real though….in most seasons, the team that is 10th is 4-5 games behind 7th. They don’t deserve a shot at it and it’s realistically just gonna make two more average games

Given that we all agree culturally that we want approximately half the amount of teams playing finals, 8 is one fewer than 9 (half of 18) and 10 is one more than 9. I don't see the issue with 10 being underserving to make finals any more than 9 is undeserving to miss finals. Any argument of where teams rank is irrelevant, they get ranked by wins no matter how it's divided.

Throw in the fact that with 10 teams across 5 weeks whatever finals system you come up with you need to be eliminating two teams per week until the GF and you are either giving teams byes or simply having more double-chance games.

Systems which involve re-ranking re-seeding teams between weeks (like the old final 8 system in use to 1999) also don't work because you need to play games in a certain order. Like in that final 8 system if 1v8 and 2v7 were played first and 1 and 2 won, the 3v6 and 4v5 games were almost pointless because all four teams were the four teams playing in week 2 of finals, just whoever won got another home final.

The only argument I can think of is that they may as well have had 3-6 play each other where you have the current system but if 5-6 beat 3-4 on wildcard weekend they can "leap" into the top 4, but I suppose the AFL didn't want to do that because that would make the difference in finishing 6th and 7th - which they're already increasing - matter even more.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Let’s be real though….in most seasons, the team that is 10th is 4-5 games behind 7th. They don’t deserve a shot at it and it’s realistically just gonna make two more average games

I'd go further and argue most of the time 7th and 8th don't deserve a shot either.

Finals should be the elite teams each season. Teams approaching a 50/50 win/loss ratio, in any season or any sport, are not elite.

We used to have finals for 4 out of 12, then 5 out of 12, then tv rights, etc have influenced the increase in recent decades, at a greater ratio than the increase of actual teams.

 

[Anja_Nees]

We will eventually get to 20 teams.

Finals for ten sides (ie on average finals every 2 years, just like it was before the expansion sides). Keeps it interesting enough.

This is a joke.

 

[X_box_X]

The Wildcard fixture is nothing but a money generator. Fairness and ethics goes completely out the window.

No way the LA Kings win the Stanley Cup in 2012 as the #8 seed if they had to go through a Wildcard round.

The Miami Heat finished the 2023 regular season as the #7 seed so they had to enter the Play-In tournament. They lost the first match to the Hawks and then won the next match against the Bulls to claim the #8 seed. They went on a crazy run to make it through to the Finals which they eventually lost. The difference here is:

• The NBA 'Play In' tournament is different to a Wildcard. 7th plays 8th with the winner claiming the #7 seed. The loser then gets a second chance by taking on the winner of 9 v 10. So if you finish 7th or 8th, the only way you don't make Playoffs is if you lose both matches. 9th and 10th have to effectively win six consecutive matchups to be champions (the two single game Play In matches as well as four consecutive best of seven series). The other thing worth mentioning about the #8 seeded Heat finishing as the runner-up in 2023 is they were the #1 seed the previous year so they at least had recent form to help them go on a mighty run.
  
  
• The Spurs famously made it through to the NBA Finals in 1999 as the #8 seed but that was an unusual shortened season (50 matches instead of 82) due to the NBA Lockout. They were certainly better than the #8 seed they ended up being and if they remained healthy in a full season they'd almost certainly have finished as a top four seed.

NFL is very different again because they play one less round then the AFL. In 2026 and beyond, under the soon to be new format, a team finishing 7th to 10th would need to win five consecutive matches to win the flag. In the NFL, a wildcard team only has to win four consecutive matches. Despite that, it's still incredible to me that 11 Wildcard teams have go on to play in the Super Bowl with seven of them winning. Another key difference here, though, is the NFL regular season is a lot shorter than the AFL season. In the AFL, you have 23 matches to sort out the good from the bad whereas in the NFL each team plays 16 matches. This means it's more likely in the NFL you'll have quality teams leaving their run late and sneaking into a Wildcard round with less margin for error. In 2024, Brisbane were 8th after 16 matches (same as an NFL regular season) and went on to win the flag. They were unconvincing in the first two thirds of the season but they were six of their final seven matches after that to show they were a contender and the rest is history.

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

It’s absolute rubbish that they’re trying to sell it as more teams can compete. All that changes now is two less teams can win the flag. No way will any team every win 5 finals in a row, coming up against rested teams in the second week.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Given that we all agree culturally that we want approximately half the amount of teams playing finals, 8 is one fewer than 9 (half of 18) and 10 is one more than 9. I don't see the issue with 10 being underserving to make finals any more than 9 is undeserving to miss finals. Any argument of where teams rank is irrelevant, they get ranked by wins no matter how it's divided.

Throw in the fact that with 10 teams across 5 weeks whatever finals system you come up with you need to be eliminating two teams per week until the GF and you are either giving teams byes or simply having more double-chance games.

Systems which involve re-ranking re-seeding teams between weeks (like the old final 8 system in use to 1999) also don't work because you need to play games in a certain order. Like in that final 8 system if 1v8 and 2v7 were played first and 1 and 2 won, the 3v6 and 4v5 games were almost pointless because all four teams were the four teams playing in week 2 of finals, just whoever won got another home final.

The only argument I can think of is that they may as well have had 3-6 play each other where you have the current system but if 5-6 beat 3-4 on wildcard weekend they can "leap" into the top 4, but I suppose the AFL didn't want to do that because that would make the difference in finishing 6th and 7th - which they're already increasing - matter even more.

I’m not sure anyone is agreeing that culturally half the league should be playing finals. I certainly don’t. Mid table isn’t success and shouldn’t be treated as.

 

[Werewolf]

What percentage of supporters legitimately approved of this lunacy?

100% against, 1% for, and that's with a 1% margin of error

0%

Looks to have about 10% support, based on the Facebook polls I've seen

 

[Mojorisin]

Looks to have about 10% support, based on the Facebook polls I've seen

Probably all Essendon supporters hoping to finally win a final.

 

[Contador]

Why? Just look at this year….outside of us, the rest were shithouse. Why add more shithousery

Because you end up with too many teams out of contention too early on. Finals spots are the only thing the AFL has to maintain any interest for most teams in the league.

There are pros and cons, but people seem to be overly focused on the cons at this point - but that's not unusual, people don't like change.

 

[TMoney22]

Stupid change for all the reasons mentioned. All that build up for our Freo game last year wouldn't exist coz we would another chance. And potentially play them 2 weeks in a row. In that scenario why not just rest players for the wildcard match this creating a dead game.every year has at least one game like that

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The Wildcard fixture is nothing but a money generator. Fairness and ethics goes completely out the window.

No way the LA Kings win the Stanley Cup in 2012 as the #8 seed if they had to go through a Wildcard round.

The Miami Heat finished the 2023 regular season as the #7 seed so they had to enter the Play-In tournament. They lost the first match to the Hawks and then won the next match against the Bulls to claim the #8 seed. They went on a crazy run to make it through to the Finals which they eventually lost. The difference here is:

• The NBA 'Play In' tournament is different to a Wildcard. 7th plays 8th with the winner claiming the #7 seed. The loser then gets a second chance by taking on the winner of 9 v 10. So if you finish 7th or 8th, the only way you don't make Playoffs is if you lose both matches. 9th and 10th have to effectively win six consecutive matchups to be champions (the two single game Play In matches as well as four consecutive best of seven series). The other thing worth mentioning about the #8 seeded Heat finishing as the runner-up in 2023 is they were the #1 seed the previous year so they at least had recent form to help them go on a mighty run.
  
  
• The Spurs famously made it through to the NBA Finals in 1999 as the #8 seed but that was an unusual shortened season (50 matches instead of 82) due to the NBA Lockout. They were certainly better than the #8 seed they ended up being and if they remained healthy in a full season they'd almost certainly have finished as a top four seed.

NFL is very different again because they play one less round then the AFL. In 2026 and beyond, under the soon to be new format, a team finishing 7th to 10th would need to win five consecutive matches to win the flag. In the NFL, a wildcard team only has to win four consecutive matches. Despite that, it's still incredible to me that 11 Wildcard teams have go on to play in the Super Bowl with seven of them winning. Another key difference here, though, is the NFL regular season is a lot shorter than the AFL season. In the AFL, you have 23 matches to sort out the good from the bad whereas in the NFL each team plays 16 matches. This means it's more likely in the NFL you'll have quality teams leaving their run late and sneaking into a Wildcard round with less margin for error. In 2024, Brisbane were 8th after 16 matches (same as an NFL regular season) and went on to win the flag. They were unconvincing in the first two thirds of the season but they were six of their final seven matches after that to show they were a contender and the rest is history.

Honestly think this is being a bit hysterical.

The AFL's terminology, yes a bit dumb.

Having a five-week finals series (as opposed to a 24-game season or whatever), perhaps a bit dumb.

Giving six teams byes in the first week in a five-week finals series, instead of two, or four? Yes a bit dumb.

Is the AFL making the decision so they can generate more money through the games? Yes, a bit dumb.

A preference for fans for sporting reasons to have fewer teams make finals, though the AFL wants more teams making finals so late-season home-and-away games don't appear to be dead rubbers? Yes a bit dumb.

But if we're talking about "fairness and ethics", this is not the issue at all. It's still a finals series where you want to finish as highly as possible to give yourself the best mathematical chance to make finals. Does the difference between 6th and 7th get exaggerated more? Sure, but one could argue the very distinct difference between 4th and 5th under the current system was far too great anyway.

Is it "unfair" that a bottom half team can make finals, maybe one with 9-11 wins? Yeah sure, but that's a matter of preference, not an absolute truth - finals systems can have any number of teams in it relative to the league, and for instance over the 90s and 2000s the WAFL and SANFL carried on with 5 team finals series from 9 teams, though not to everyone's preference, nobody really called it unfair, lacking integrity, or against the spirit of football or whatever.

In any case I wouldn't necessarily call it more unfair if a 9 wins 14 loss team makes finals from 10th any more unfair than a 14 win 9 loss team missing finals from 9th ... hang on...

If we want to talk league integrity that ship has loooong sailed. Adelaide and Port have purchased a 12th home game for the last 3 years, meaning six teams have played a 12th away game ... and guess who one of those teams are. Freo were able to also buy a 12th home game (meaning North played 10) ... and they won by 6 points over North to make finals, where the difference in home ground advantage would have meant that they lost and we would have made finals, you know, in a league with integrity where you actually prevented teams from simply buying an advantage from another. We finished above Hawthorn in 2024, but had to play our home final at their home ground. etc. etc. etc. All of greater sporting lack of integrity driven by commercialism than merely redistributing some of the benefit of finishing 6th and 7th to 9th and 10th toward winning a flag, while still maintaining the fact that it's still always more beneficial to finish as high on the ladder as possible in finals permutations (just where you put the cut-off points with double chances and number of rounds is arbitrary and blocky).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I’m not sure anyone is agreeing that culturally half the league should be playing finals. I certainly don’t. Mid table isn’t success and shouldn’t be treated as.

Fair enough, though I'm making the point that that's the "cultural" view because it's the case for most of how football is played across the country, and has been at least for a couple of decades. AFL went to 8 from 15 in 1994, SANFL and WAFL have had top 5 systems for 10 or fewer teams for most of the last decade or two. Suburban leagues if they have 10 teams typically do a final 5. Etc. etc.

 

[MaxiBont]

Cochrane given NGA status with Port

 

[Testekill]

Cochrane given NGA status with Port

My big questions is how long has he been involved with Port. If he's been unofficially training with the academy since he was like 13 or 14 then I'm okay with it. If Port have only started getting involved once it looked like he'd go at no.1 and might potentially be Indigenous then it's really something to be leery of.

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

My big questions is how long has he been involved with Port. If he's been unofficially training with the academy since he was like 13 or 14 then I'm okay with it. If Port have only started getting involved once it looked like he'd go at no.1 and might potentially be Indigenous then it's really something to be leery of.

I would’ve thought it’s pretty simple. You’re either in an academy or you’re not. This administration has lost whatever plot they had.

 

[_Cerberus_]

It would have been approved months ago. But the AFL were waiting on proof of his indigenous status. Apparently it took some time to get all the paper work and such organised. Don't think it's as scandalous as some here may think.

 

[Mojorisin]

It would have been approved months ago. But the AFL were waiting on proof of his indigenous status. Apparently it took some time to get all the paper work and such organised. Don't think it's as scandalous as some here may think.

My wife has been through all the paper work for our kids. You're right it isn't as easy as ticking a box and does take time to get approval.

 

[Bald Headed Flog]

I would’ve thought it’s pretty simple. You’re either in an academy or you’re not. This administration has lost whatever plot they had.

They set a tough precedent with Ty Gallop. Added to Brisbanes academy a year before being drafted, and they got priority.

Given that happened, I have zero issues with Port getting Cochrane. ****ing sick of the AFL pulling up the ladder on teams once the northern clubs have enjoyed the benefits. Might as well go ahead and **** the draft up properly with Cochrane and Walker the best two kids and both being tied to clubs

 

[Testekill]

I guess as long as it's kept consistent. They opened up a can of worms with Gallop as precedent and a year out should be enough for any team to add someone.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Cochrane given NGA status with Port

What does this mean for the picks Port will need to match a bid on him?

 

[stmookeyj]

The Spurs famously made it through to the NBA Finals in 1999 as the #8 seed but that was an unusual shortened season (50 matches instead of 82) due to the NBA Lockout. They were certainly better than the #8 seed they ended up being and if they remained healthy in a full season they'd almost certainly have finished as a top four seed.

That was the Knicks who lost to the Spurs in the finals in 5 games (Spurs were #1 in the West)

 

[X_box_X]

That was the Knicks who lost to the Spurs in the finals in 5 games (Spurs were #1 in the West)

Yeah my bad. It was the Knicks who were the #8 seed who went on the make it through to the NBA finals.

 

[TiAn_]

A 5 round finals system for an 18 team competition is laughable. As is 6 teams having a bye and two of them having a second bye.

The NFL, NBA and NHL each have 30+ teams and each only 4 playoff rounds. Only the NFL features a bye and it’s only one bye week for the top two teams.