News ‘Would be unreal’: AFL to consult clubs over addition of ‘wildcard round’ to finals

[juss]

It's a rubbish idea.

Why not extend it to 12 teams? Where's the line?

Rewarding mediocrity cheapens the achievement and merit of actually making the final 8, which is now the final 10 effectively if this game goes ahead and it just adds another EF.

Looking forward to 5th then destroying the 10th based side that snuck through.

I wish the AFL would actually focus on the bigger issues in the game rather than trying to invent each year new ways to fill their pockets.

 

[kriles76]

The only sport where it actually makes sense is the NFL.

The wildcards there are the teams with the best W/L record who didn't win their division. Often they have more wins than the teams who qualified directly. Last season Tampa Bay (8-9) finished 4th and the wildcards were Dallas (12-5), New York (9-1-7) and Seattle (9-8).

In the AFL it's just a thinly disguised way to the extend the finals series. As it is in the NBA.

And MLB.

This year, all 5 teams in the AL East division currently have a better record than the leading team in the AL Central.

The leading AL Central team will gain an automatic playoff spot, while there are only three wildcard spots possible in each league of the MLB. So two of those AL East teams might not even get a wildcard despite potentially having a better WL record than the team at the top of the AL Central.

For context, the Twins have the 8th best WL record of 15 teams in the American League atm.

 

[nut]

Well Richmond will be thrilled with this idea.

Every thread a Geelong supporter turns it into something about Richmond???

 

[chickenonachain]

Just play everyone once then the finals can’t be any simpler

 

[Cleavy]

Just play everyone once then the finals can’t be any simpler

But think of the money left on the table.

 

[chickenonachain]

But think of the money left on the table.

Mate I know it’s all about the money but it’s the only way to have a fair and uncompromised draw. Have a look at Essendon they play us and west coast twice 16 points and % advantage should not happen

 

[Carringbush2010]

17-6.

Play each team once then the top 6, mid 6 and bottom 6 play each other.

Mid 6 effectively play for the last two final spots.

Bottom 6 play for draft picks.

Top 6 jostle for positions.

Basically no dead rubbers.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So this year Freo would play West Coast in the normal rounds 1-17. Again in rivalry round and again in the split as they are both bottom 6. We don't need teams playing each other 3 times.

That's only if they're both in the same 6, can't imagine that happening every year.

Other problems are, if the split happened this week after 17 games, the bottom 6 are all eliminated. GC and Sydney can still make finals with the current system. With the split they have nothing to play for.

Have the ladder still in play, and because GC are in the bottom 6 they play the bottom teams, better chance of winning and maybe making the 8. They're only a game and a half out.

So after 17 rounds you're we're you're at and the teams are settled in their six and that's who'll they'll play for the remaining games, but the ladder may change afterwards depending on wins, losses and percentage, like GC could win all their games and make the 8, and those in the original mid 6 or even top 6 may lose enough to fall out.

Also do we really need the top 6 to all play each other right before finals? Does that improve the final series?

Actually yes, it's a sterner test instead the top teams fixtured against the bottom teams, also gives us a preview of what the finals games might look like. Of course.

All of this makes for less dead rubbers

 

[Carringbush2010]

if its a 7-10 wildcard scenario the teams that make the top 8 would have to lose twice to miss finals imv, they earned it throughout the season and one off game/ bad match up should'nt mean missing when the difference between the teams could be multiple wins, and the team 9 and 10 would have to win twice to make it, like the NBA

Game A: 7 v 8
Game B: 9 v 10
Game C: Loser of Game A v Winner of Game B

The 17 game season then the ladder being segmented into 3 groups of 6 makes some sense, but the ladder would have to then be effectively be reset after round 17 or you could have a team from the bottom 6 group finishing higher than a team in the middle 6 group. Then if the ladder is reset where the top 6 is locked, 7-12 is locked and 13-18 is locked what is the incentive for the teams in the bottom grouping to win where they can get the number 1 pick due to the ladder being reset.

I reckon still have the ladder in play.

So after 17 rounds, you're in your 6 and that's who'll you play in the remaining games, then with the ladder still in play you may rise or fall out of your 6.

What it does do, after 17 rounds you play teams in similar form, and gives us a preview of what the finals might look like.

 

[banzai]

I reckon still have the ladder in play.

So after 17 rounds, you're in your 6 and that's who'll you play in the remaining games, then with the ladder still in play you may rise or fall out of your 6.

What it does do, after 17 rounds you play teams in similar form, and gives us a preview of what the finals might look like.

You cant have the ladder in play. That would mean 13th is nearly the best spot outside the top 6. Would cruise into finals, where as 12th has no chance.

Same for finishing 7th. 6th would prob go 0-5 and miss the 8 every year.

 

[Coolangatta]

Maybe just have each team play the nearest team to them on the ladder as long as they haven’t already played each other twice. So game 18, 1st would play 2nd again, and if the ladder remained unchanged, 1st would play whoever 3rd is next week.

The only problem with that is the fixtures aren’t set five weeks in advance so it’s short notice for fans to know who they’ll be playing.

 

[Bombermania]

What problem are they trying to solve with this idea. If the AFL is so desperate for cash they have to take a look at themselves before coming up with these brainfarts.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You cant have the ladder in play. That would mean 13th is nearly the best spot outside the top 6. Would cruise into finals, where as 12th has no chance.

Well that all depends on how those teams perform, for example GC are a game and a half out, with 6 games to play.

If they play the other bottom 6 teams as the ladder would be at the end of round 17, they'd likely have a better chance then if they were fixtured against teams in the top 4 for example in their last 6 games to make finals.

So you can have the ladder in play,

The ladder is what it is after rd 17, then it may change and you might rise or fall out of your 6.

What this does is pits teams in similar form against each other instead of a pre set fixture, so we have less dead rubbers.

 

[underthestars]

heading towards a top 16. each a knockout game. 1 v 16 etc.
15 games. do it. enough of the stupid qualifiers and weeks off.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Maybe just have each team play the nearest team to them on the ladder as long as they haven’t already played each other twice. So game 18, 1st would play 2nd again, and if the ladder remained unchanged, 1st would play whoever 3rd is next week.

The only problem with that is the fixtures aren’t set five weeks in advance so it’s short notice for fans to know who they’ll be playing.

Here's my option on a 17-6.

After rd 17, the ladder is what it is, and you play whoever is in your 6 for the remaining games, as at the end of rd 17, teams in similar form.

Still have the ladder in play, so the ladder may (likely) change in the last 6 games.

So for example GC would play Ade, Freo, Hawks, North and WC but may make finals if they win all their games.

Not to mention we get a preview of what the finals might look like, and who knows, most years a top 6 team might drop out.

Basically the last 6 games you play teams in similar form.

 

[terrybull]

Calling it a "wildcard round" does nothing to hide the fact it's just a mediocre way to do a Final 10, and only showcases the AFL's pathetic lack of imagination when it comes to borrowing the dullest and dumbest ideas from every other sporting code - cultural cringe at its most hollow. Is it really "unreal" or "exciting" to watch 8th play 9th for the prospect of making a finals series in which neither is a realistic prospect anyway?

Final 8 for an 18-team competition - or even 19 or 20 teams - is a more than adequate size. But if we absolutely must expand the finals series to a 10, then at least have the dignity to call it what it is and do it properly, with 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th playing qualifying matches (winners get the double chance away to 1st/2nd, losers get a home final against the winners of 7th/10th and 8th/9th). Hyping these sub-elimination finals into something more than what they are by making them a standalone round with a different name would just be the same tone-deaf nonsense as usual from the AFL, though, so strap in...

Brilliant

I was trying to work out how a fair Final 10 could be done, and this is it!

Please send it to the AFL instead of the Wild Card proposal.

Because there is an extra week, then no need for the bye round before the Finals.

Week 1

1st Challenge Final - 3 vs 6

2nd Challenge Final - 4 vs 5

1st Removal Final - 7 vs 10

2nd Removal Final - 8 vs 9


Week 2

1st Qualifying Final - 1 vs Winner 2nd CF

2nd Qualifying Final - 2 vs Winner 1st CF

1st Elimination Final - Loser 1st CF vs Winner 1st RF

2nd Elimination Final - Loser 2nd CF vs Winner 2nd RF



Week 3

1 st Semi Final - Loser 2nd QF vs winner 2nd EF

2nd Semi Final - Loser 1st QF vs winner 1st EF



Week 4

1st Preliminary Final - Winner 1st CF vs Winner 1st SF

2nd Preliminary Final - Winner 2nd CF vs Winner 2nd SF



Week 5

Grand Final - Winner 1st PF vs Winner 2nd PF


Example: (in this case highest teams wins)

Ladder

1. Adelaide
2. Brisbane
3. Carlton
4. Collingwood
5. Essendon
6. Fremantle
7. Geelong
8. Gold Coast
9. GWS
10. Hawthorn

Week 1

1st CF - Carlton defeats Fremantle

2nd CF - Collingwood defeats Essendon

1st RF - Geelong defeats Hawthorn

2nd RF - Gold Coast defeats GWS



Week 2

1st QF - Adelaide defeats Collingwood

2nd QF - Brisbane defeats Carlton

1st EF - Fremantle defeats Geelong

2nd EF - Essendon defeats Gold Coast



Week 3

1st SF - Carlton defeats Essendon

2nd SF - Collingwood defeats Fremantle



Week 4

1st PF - Adelaide defeats Carlton

2nd PF - Brisbane defeats Collingwood



Week 5

GF - Adelaide defeats Brisbane

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

17-6.

Play each team once then the top 6, mid 6 and bottom 6 play each other.

Mid 6 effectively play for the last two final spots.

Bottom 6 play for draft picks.

Top 6 jostle for positions.

Basically no dead rubbers.

And if we're moving to a 19 or 20 team league, how would that work with different numbers of rounds required in each group.

 

[JackOutback]

Mate I know it’s all about the money but it’s the only way to have a fair and uncompromised draw. Have a look at Essendon they play us and west coast twice 16 points and % advantage should not happen

I mean, it’s still not fair and equitable because some teams will get more home games, some teams will get the tougher teams at home and weaker ones away to inflate their points etc. The only way to be fair is everyone plays everyone home and away (and then, still not fair because of the concentration of teams in one location). Really, there’s no point arguing for fairness at this point.

 

[Carringbush2010]

And if we're moving to a 19 or 20 team league, how would that work with different numbers of rounds required in each group.

Not sure how it'd work with a 19th team, none the less we're a few years away from that, until then a 17-6 model with ladder in play could work quite well.

 

[chickenonachain]

I mean, it’s still not fair and equitable because some teams will get more home games, some teams will get the tougher teams at home and weaker ones away to inflate their points etc. The only way to be fair is everyone plays everyone home and away (and then, still not fair because of the concentration of teams in one location). Really, there’s no point arguing for fairness at this point.

Mate if you play a team at home one year the next year you play them away can’t be any fairer than that

 

[Coolangatta]

Does the fixture really matter? Pretty sure the Pies, Power and Lions would finish top three no matter what the fixture looks like, as they’ve clearly been the best three teams this season and it’s hard to imagine the premier being anyone other than those three.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Does the fixture really matter? Pretty sure the Pies, Power and Lions would finish top three no matter what the fixture looks like, as they’ve clearly been the best three teams this season and it’s hard to imagine the premier being anyone other than those three.

Well you can judge each team after they've all played each other, so in a sense, yes it does matter.

 

[JackOutback]

Mate if you play a team at home one year the next year you play them away can’t be any fairer than that

Of course you can. Form changes from year to year, the premiership you are competing for is annual, not biannual. What might be an easy win on the road one year might become a tricky fixture at home the next and vice versa. And it will never be fair to interstate teams whose every away game bar one is thousands of kms away, while Melbourne-based teams can get up to nine away games a few kms up the road. The simple fact is, the AFL fixture can never be fair, so people complaining that the fixture is being manipulated once again for dollars are really barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course you can. Form changes from year to year, the premiership you are competing for is annual, not biannual. What might be an easy win on the road one year might become a tricky fixture at home the next and vice versa. And it will never be fair to interstate teams whose every away game bar one is thousands of kms away, while Melbourne-based teams can get up to nine away games a few kms up the road. The simple fact is, the AFL fixture can never be fair, so people complaining that the fixture is being manipulated once again for dollars are really barking up the wrong tree.

This is more suited for the vic bias thread.

 

[chickenonachain]

Of course you can. Form changes from year to year, the premiership you are competing for is annual, not biannual. What might be an easy win on the road one year might become a tricky fixture at home the next and vice versa. And it will never be fair to interstate teams whose every away game bar one is thousands of kms away, while Melbourne-based teams can get up to nine away games a few kms up the road. The simple fact is, the AFL fixture can never be fair, so people complaining that the fixture is being manipulated once again for dollars are really barking up the wrong tree.

Again playing each other once in a season is the fairest draw you can have if you can’t see that and bring up Vic bias I can’t help you sorry