I streamlined my old 4-week, 10-team Finals idea

[steve-o]

About 18 months ago I made this comment in an old thread about 10-team Finals. Since then, the AFL has adopted a different format, and my idea never really got exposure. I was hoping for a little feedback to see if this plan was preferable to the 5-week "Wild Card" format we're going to see for 2026.

---

This is a 4-week format. All 10 teams play Week 1 of the Finals, and the top 3 teams get the double-chance.
Notably, the first week features the Minor Premier against the 10th seed.
If this game is an upset, both teams play in Week 2 (three Semifinals instead of two). If not, Minor Premier gets a bye.

Week 1
1st vs. 10th (1st gets bye with win/10th eliminated with loss)
2nd vs. 3rd (winner gets bye/loser plays Week 2)
4th vs. 9th
5th vs. 8th
6th vs. 7th

Week 2 - BYE for 1st (if they won) and winner of 2nd vs. 3rd
1st (if they lost) vs. 2nd-lowest winner
Loser 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two winners

Week 3
Winner 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two teams

Week 4
remaining two winners

This protocol should have no repeat matches before the GF.
The likelihood of a 1st/2nd or 1st/3rd Preliminary Final is no higher than the status quo, but the minor premier only needs to beat 10th to secure a bye (instead of 4th). This gives more advantage to being minor premier.
The team finishing 10th must defeat the Top 3 (including one coming off a bye) to make the GF; even though they're basically cannon fodder, their presence makes the ladder incentives better.
There are significant advantages for finishing higher at nearly every spot on the ladder, as you want to secure home games and avoid possibly playing teams coming off a Week 2 bye.

---

I really don't like the Wild Card idea or adding a week, but did like having 10 teams in Finals, so this is what I came up with. I think it can be better than the 8-team finals were, but I might have a blind spot.

As I stated previously, I didn't get a lot of feedback on this and I think it got buried (and there was a wacky protocol for the prelims that I now can safely ignore). Please let me know what you guys think of this, if you think it's good and should be pursued further.

Happy New Year

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Please come back to us with a viable top six, a far more sensible number of teams making finals if finals are supposed to be the way of determining premiers rather than just a money grab.

 

[steve-o]

Please come back to us with a viable top six, a far more sensible number of teams making finals if finals are supposed to be the way of determining premiers rather than just a money grab.

If you want that, make it a straight-up 7-team bracket without double-chance:

• it's only 3 weeks long (good for a 24-game season).
• there's a huge advantage for the minor premier and smaller but significant advantages down the ladder.
• the NFL's been using it for five seasons, so it's a tested format.

I've posted a Top 10 because the money-grab matters to the AFL; they could improve on the Top 8 while they do it, and that is what I've tried to do.

 

[Suakan]

Looks good to me, but I'd be interested to see what the possible cons could be.

Definitely better than the wildcard.

 

[Jezzitizle]

About 18 months ago I made this comment in an old thread about 10-team Finals. Since then, the AFL has adopted a different format, and my idea never really got exposure. I was hoping for a little feedback to see if this plan was preferable to the 5-week "Wild Card" format we're going to see for 2026.

---

This is a 4-week format. All 10 teams play Week 1 of the Finals, and the top 3 teams get the double-chance.
Notably, the first week features the Minor Premier against the 10th seed.
If this game is an upset, both teams play in Week 2 (three Semifinals instead of two). If not, Minor Premier gets a bye.

Week 1
1st vs. 10th (1st gets bye with win/10th eliminated with loss)
2nd vs. 3rd (winner gets bye/loser plays Week 2)
4th vs. 9th
5th vs. 8th
6th vs. 7th

Week 2 - BYE for 1st (if they won) and winner of 2nd vs. 3rd
1st (if they lost) vs. 2nd-lowest winner
Loser 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two winners

Week 3
Winner 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two teams

Week 4
remaining two winners

This protocol should have no repeat matches before the GF.
The likelihood of a 1st/2nd or 1st/3rd Preliminary Final is no higher than the status quo, but the minor premier only needs to beat 10th to secure a bye (instead of 4th). This gives more advantage to being minor premier.
The team finishing 10th must defeat the Top 3 (including one coming off a bye) to make the GF; even though they're basically cannon fodder, their presence makes the ladder incentives better.
There are significant advantages for finishing higher at nearly every spot on the ladder, as you want to secure home games and avoid possibly playing teams coming off a Week 2 bye.

---

I really don't like the Wild Card idea or adding a week, but did like having 10 teams in Finals, so this is what I came up with. I think it can be better than the 8-team finals were, but I might have a blind spot.

As I stated previously, I didn't get a lot of feedback on this and I think it got buried (and there was a wacky protocol for the prelims that I now can safely ignore). Please let me know what you guys think of this, if you think it's good and should be pursued further.

Happy New Year

Bit hard to follow the way it is written, would be good to see it with a ladder and teams and a few scenarios.

Does 1st get 2 weeks of bye if they win r1? I hate happens if they lose in consecutive weeks, where does that second week team go?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I think I need to chart out that top ten idea.
What happens with the second by if 1st loses? Or is an extra team eliminated?

Week 1
1st vs. 10th (1st gets bye with win/10th eliminated with loss) -- 10th wins
2nd vs. 3rd (winner gets bye/loser plays Week 2) -- 3rd wins
4th vs. 9th -- 4th wins
5th vs. 8th -- 5th wins
6th vs. 7th -- 7th wins


Week 2 - BYE for 1st (if they won) and winner of 2nd vs. 3rd
1st (if they lost) vs. 2nd-lowest winner
Loser 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two winners

Bye : N/A, 3rd
1st v 5th
2nd v 7th
4th v ???

 

[steve-o]

Bit hard to follow the way it is written, would be good to see it with a ladder and teams and a few scenarios.

Does 1st get 2 weeks of bye if they win r1? I hate happens if they lose in consecutive weeks, where does that second week team go?

No, just one week of bye for winning week 1, regardless of who you played. The Minor Prem's big advantage is that they only have to beat 10th to get the bye, where 2nd and 3rd have to beat each other.

I should be able to show ladder incentives later, but they'll be the same as the linked comment (where I did list those). I don't think they've changed at all with the update I made.

What happens with the second by if 1st loses? Or is an extra team eliminated?

Week 1
1st vs. 10th (1st gets bye with win/10th eliminated with loss) -- 10th wins
2nd vs. 3rd (winner gets bye/loser plays Week 2) -- 3rd wins
4th vs. 9th -- 4th wins
5th vs. 8th -- 5th wins
6th vs. 7th -- 7th wins

Week 2
1st(off loss) vs. 7th
2nd(off loss) vs. 10th
4th vs. 5th

Week 3
3rd(off bye) vs. lowest remaining
other two Week 2 winners

NOTE: it's a little wacky to have the teams coming out of the 2/3 matchup getting the lowest seed remaining, but that protocol all by itself does all the legwork to prevent rematches, incentivize ladder performance, make things hard for 10th, etc. It was the elegant solution I hadn't quite found mid-2024.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I think I see what I misread, but still need to map it out.

 

[Toump Ass]

The minor premier then having to play against a poor team to qualify for a bye is a bit hokey.
2 v 3 playing week one but the team finishing fourth getting ninthmond is a bit crap too. Finishing higher should be an advantage.

Prefer the AFLs wildcard weekend, which I don't like at all.

 

[steve-o]

The minor premier then having to play against a poor team to qualify for a bye is a bit hokey.

It's definitely a little strange, but it opened up the format (and others) when I found it. It's the key to making this whole thing work, and it's not a negative for the format.

It helped when I built a 10-team bracket for baseball this summer here in the States.

2 v 3 playing week one but the team finishing fourth getting ninthmond is a bit crap too. Finishing higher should be an advantage.

4th doesn't get the double-chance in this format. Finishing higher IS an advantage.
The loser of 2nd/3rd faces no higher than 6th in week 2.

 

[maskmcgee]

All sorts of problems, games having to be played in a specific order to avoid matches potentially becoming dead rubbers the main one. 4th a better finish than 2nd or 3rd another one.

 

[steve-o]

All sorts of problems, games having to be played in a specific order to avoid matches potentially becoming dead rubbers the main one. 4th a better finish than 2nd or 3rd another one.

Sorry if it looks that way - there's no specific order for the games, and no dead rubbers. The only conditional is whether that 1 vs. 10 game goes scratch or not. There would probably be a preferred order for the Week 1 games only, but it's still a win-to-advance system - I hate dead rubbers.

4th doesn't get the double chance in this format, so it's categorically not a better spot than 3rd. I'm not sure if I made that clear enough.

 

[Dan26]

Your system works, but you need to articulate it better.

Basically, if 1st beats 10th, it becomes 10-match final-10 with one team getting a double chance

If 10th beat first, it becomes an 11-match final-10 with TWO teams getting a second chance.


SCENARIO ONE (1st beats 10th).....winners in bold

Week 1
1st vs. 10th - 1st Qualifying Final
2nd vs. 3rd - 2nd Qualifying Final
4th vs. 9th - 1st Elimination Final
5th vs. 8th - 2nd Elimination Final
6th vs. 7th - 3rd Elimintion Final

- loser of Elimination finals are out

• loser 2v3 to week 2
• winner of 2v3 to week 3
• If 1st wins, they go to week 3. If 1st loses, they go to week 2

Week 2 (highest vs lowest)
3rd vs 6th - 1st semi-Final
4th vs 5th - 2nd semi-Final

- losers out
- winners to week 3

Week 3 (highest vs lowest)
1st vs 4th - 1st Preliminary Final
2nd vs 3rd - 2nd Preliminary Final

Week 4- Grand Final
Grand Final


SCENARIO TWO (10th beats 1st).....winners in bold

Week 1
1st vs. 10th - 1st Qualifying Final
2nd vs. 3rd - 2nd Qualifying Final
4th vs. 9th - 1st Elimination Final
5th vs. 8th - 2nd Elimination Final
6th vs. 7th - 3rd Elimintion Final

- loser of Elimination finals are out

• loser 2v3 to week 2
• winner of 2v3 to week 3
• If 1st wins, they go to week 3. If 1st loses, they go to week 2

After week one, the 7 remaining teams are seeded this way:

seed 1 (2nd, who get a week off)
seed 2 (3rd, who lost to 2nd)
seed 3 (1st who lost to 10th)
seed 4 (4th who beat 9th)
seed 5 (5th, who beat 8th)
seed 6 (6th, wo beats 7th)
seed 7 (10th, who beat 1st)



Week 2 (highest seed vs lowest seed)
3rd vs 10th - 1st semi-Final (2nd seed vs 7th seed)
1st vs 6th - 2nd semi-Final (3rd seed vs 6th seed)
4th vs 5th - 3rd semi-Final (4th seed vs 5th seed)

- losers out

• winners to week 3
• 2nd get the bye and become the top seeded team (1st drop to third seed after losing to 10th)

Week 3 (highest vs lowest)
2nd vs 4th - 1st Preliminary Final (1st seed vs 4th seed)
3rd vs 1st - 2nd Preliminary Final (2nd seed vs 3rd seed)

Week 4- Grand Final
Grand Final

 

[Dan26]

All sorts of problems, games having to be played in a specific order to avoid matches potentially becoming dead rubbers the main one. 4th a better finish than 2nd or 3rd another one.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no specific order needs to be played at all. Can't you read?

 

[Dan26]

steve-0,

The probabilities of your final-10 are as follows:

1st - 18.75%
2nd - 18.75%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 6.25%
5th - 6.25%
6th - 6.25%
7th - 6.25%
8th - 6.25%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%

Good job, by the way.

 

[1970crow]

I don’t even know why we play finals. The real winner is whoever finishes top after home and away is completed. Any old hack team can get lucky and win 3 straight in September. Total waste of time when the champs have been announced end of August.

 

[Whiskers]

Not a terrible top 10. I personally don’t mind it.
Just think the AFL prefer more simplicity and the term ‘wildcard’
This seems maybe a touch complicated for your average fan and the outrage would be greater.

 

[Dan26]

The minor premier then having to play against a poor team to qualify for a bye is a bit hokey.
2 v 3 playing week one but the team finishing fourth getting ninthmond is a bit crap too. Finishing higher should be an advantage.

Finishing higher is an advantage. 4th have to win 4 knockout finals in a row (6.25% chance only)

2nd and 3rd only have to win 3 finals and have a double chance if they lose week one. (an 18.75% chance)

Sure, 4th has an easier match against 9th, but think about it. Even if 4th wins, the BEST scenario is they progress to week 2. The WORST thing that can happen to 2nd or 3rd is a loss and a home final in week 2. So even the very worst thing that can happen to 2nd is still the same or better than the best thing to happen to 4th.

 

[steve-o]

Just think the AFL prefer more simplicity and the term ‘wildcard’
This seems maybe a touch complicated for your average fan and the outrage would be greater.

It's kind of funny - if the current Top 8 is a "4/4" format, and this is a "3/7," there's also a 2/10 that would work pretty well (1 prelim, 5 eliminators, and 3 games guaranteed in week 2). Going the other direction, there's 5/1. These are all just mathematical offshoots of the current Top 8; I've tried to change only what's needed to get up to 10 teams, and what I've changed is in favor of simplicity and improvement. It could be a lot worse.

But I guess there's nothing simpler than tacking two games onto the current format and just dealing with the PR issues, rather than thinking through to this method.

 

[terrybull]

Final 16 if we go beyond 2o teams (all knockout games):

Top 8 pick the teams 9-16 they want to meet
Minor Premiers get first pick and so on.

Elimination Finals, best of 3.
Top ranked team fist game home then away. If a necessary third game then home again.

Semi Finals best of 3
Top 4 pick from bottom 4.
Home-Away-Home

Preliminary Finals best of 3
Top 2 pick from bottom 2

Grand Final 1 match at MCG
Two Preliminary Finals winners.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

About 18 months ago I made this comment in an old thread about 10-team Finals. Since then, the AFL has adopted a different format, and my idea never really got exposure. I was hoping for a little feedback to see if this plan was preferable to the 5-week "Wild Card" format we're going to see for 2026.

---

This is a 4-week format. All 10 teams play Week 1 of the Finals, and the top 3 teams get the double-chance.
Notably, the first week features the Minor Premier against the 10th seed.
If this game is an upset, both teams play in Week 2 (three Semifinals instead of two). If not, Minor Premier gets a bye.

Week 1
1st vs. 10th (1st gets bye with win/10th eliminated with loss)
2nd vs. 3rd (winner gets bye/loser plays Week 2)
4th vs. 9th
5th vs. 8th
6th vs. 7th

Week 2 - BYE for 1st (if they won) and winner of 2nd vs. 3rd
1st (if they lost) vs. 2nd-lowest winner
Loser 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two winners

Week 3
Winner 2v3 vs. lowest winner
remaining two teams

Week 4
remaining two winners

This protocol should have no repeat matches before the GF.
The likelihood of a 1st/2nd or 1st/3rd Preliminary Final is no higher than the status quo, but the minor premier only needs to beat 10th to secure a bye (instead of 4th). This gives more advantage to being minor premier.
The team finishing 10th must defeat the Top 3 (including one coming off a bye) to make the GF; even though they're basically cannon fodder, their presence makes the ladder incentives better.
There are significant advantages for finishing higher at nearly every spot on the ladder, as you want to secure home games and avoid possibly playing teams coming off a Week 2 bye.

---

I really don't like the Wild Card idea or adding a week, but did like having 10 teams in Finals, so this is what I came up with. I think it can be better than the 8-team finals were, but I might have a blind spot.

As I stated previously, I didn't get a lot of feedback on this and I think it got buried (and there was a wacky protocol for the prelims that I now can safely ignore). Please let me know what you guys think of this, if you think it's good and should be pursued further.

Happy New Year

Well thought out. I like it.

I think the biggest drawback is having fans understand the system.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Final 16 if we go beyond 2o teams (all knockout games):

Top 8 pick the teams 9-16 they want to meet
Minor Premiers get first pick and so on.

Elimination Finals, best of 3.
Top ranked team fist game home then away. If a necessary third game then home again.

Semi Finals best of 3
Top 4 pick from bottom 4.
Home-Away-Home

Preliminary Finals best of 3
Top 2 pick from bottom 2

Grand Final 1 match at MCG
Two Preliminary Finals winners.

I love this concept of teams choosing who they play. Makes it more personal and more entertaining if they lose.

Don’t know about the 3 games for each round. That’s a lot of repeat games and/or byes through the final series (noting each round would need to be 3 weeks just in case).

I actually think the grand final should be a two-game round though. Second match is always at the MCG (so winner is decided there). First match is the top ranked team’s home ground (or if they are based in Melbourne, then the other team’s home ground first). If the scores are 1-1 at the end, it comes down to points difference (essentially making it an 8 quarter match).

 

[steve-o]

Final 16 if we go beyond 2o teams (all knockout games):

Hey buddy, please don't comment with goofy junk like this. All it does is open the floodgates for everyone else's half-baked, under-worked ideas or snide, throwaway remarks. I'm putting my neck out trying to get serious feedback here, so make your own post if you want, otherwise this is just more internet trash.

 

[steve-o]

Well thought out. I like it.

I think the biggest drawback is having fans understand the system.

I'm sure there's a good way to reframe it - like I've said elsewhere, there's an elegant choice in here that makes the whole thing work better.

This might help to explain it, referencing the current system:

Week 1: 1st plays lowest seed. 2nd plays 3rd (Qualifier). 1st, 2nd, 3rd get double-chance.
Week 2: Loser of Qualifier plays lowest seed.
Week 3: Winner of Qualifier plays lowest seed.
Week 4: Grand Final

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I'm sure there's a good way to reframe it - like I've said elsewhere, there's an elegant choice in here that makes the whole thing work better.

This might help to explain it, referencing the current system:

Week 1: 1st plays lowest seed. 2nd plays 3rd (Qualifier). 1st, 2nd, 3rd get double-chance.
Week 2: Loser of Qualifier plays lowest seed.
Week 3: Winner of Qualifier plays lowest seed.
Week 4: Grand Final

Oh don’t get me wrong, it all makes sense and I prefer it to the AFL’s system.

It’s just the media already makes a field day of making the current system sound complex, and your system is another level still.