AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[Roobs321]

22 pages already lol

great, so that's three cringe matches I won't be watching next year: VicvWA, 7v10, 8v9. They just don't exist. AFL Media will find other things to crap on about for HQ to then implement. The Day GF's days are numbered, not if but when.

 

[joe444]

None of your argument stack up. You havn't bothered to analyse, (or understand) any of the mathematics of the system. Or even tried to understand it. You can gather, I assume, that I have done a lot of homework with this sort of stuff. It's right in my wheelhouse.

You don't, or have not had the ability to understand the idea that "rewarding mediocrity" is a flawed narrative, that fails to take into account the staggered rewards throughout the finals system and you fail to understand that increasing your chance from zero to 3.125%, whilst a reward, is extremely minor.

You just parrot regressive talking points such as "leave the game alone" none of which makes sense in a rapidly evolving competition which has increased from 16 to 19 teams. You're probably not old enough to remember, but this EXACT discussion took place when the final 8 came in with the same "rewarding mediocrity" arguments. Give the regressives one year, and none of them were talking about it.

My advice is give it a chance.

Dude, assuming every match is 50/50 is not "a lot of homework".

There's no performance gradient, no factoring of home grounds, the tree multiplies probabilities as if every match outcome is independent of previous ones. It assumes bracket symmetry. Most critically there is an issue of sample-space distortion: introducing an extra week does not mean two more 50/50 matchups. It changes rest days, travel, and fatigue.

My advice is all those arguments in the past that you smugly thought you'd won are actually examples of people being exhausted by your bullishness.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

You're probably not old enough to remember, but this EXACT discussion took place when the final 8 came in with the same "rewarding mediocrity" arguments. Give the regressives one year, and none of them were talking about it.

My advice is give it a chance.

I'm old enough to remember, and we had some rubbish finals, 1st v 8th lol in a 15 team comp

Then under the current system beginning in 2000 no one outside the top 4 made the GF, until we brought in the pre finals bye in 2016

Since then we've had great finals series, unpredictable... we've FINALLY got it right, the league has grown into producing a viable final 8

So why stuff it up again for the sake of a few more $$ which will just go straight into AFL exec's pockets?

And no don't list those fn probabilities again

 

[mm23]

You don't, or have not had the ability to understand the idea that "rewarding mediocrity" is a flawed narrative, that fails to take into account the staggered rewards throughout the finals system and you fail to understand that increasing your chance from zero to 3.125%,

It's not 3.125%. If the odds of them winning each game is 3/1 which is likely that gives a 0.41% chance of winning 5 in a row.

 

[The Punter]

Certainly a retort.
View attachment 2473768

A response then?

 

[theprospector]

I blame the media. Every year you can predict the news cycles.

Night GF, Wildcard Round, trade week (which now has coverage during the finals extensively), rule changes.

The AFL typically float these ideas a year or two early and have a few lapdog journos push it as a good idea (Think Gerard Whateley).

The AFL pushed this and so did the media and now we are stuck with it.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

None of your argument stack up. You havn't bothered to analyse, (or understand) any of the mathematics of the system. Or even tried to understand it. You can gather, I assume, that I have done a lot of homework with this sort of stuff. It's right in my wheelhouse.

You don't, or have not had the ability to understand the idea that "rewarding mediocrity" is a flawed narrative, that fails to take into account the staggered rewards throughout the finals system and you fail to understand that increasing your chance from zero to 3.125%, whilst a reward, is extremely minor.

You just parrot regressive talking points such as "leave the game alone" none of which makes sense in a rapidly evolving competition which has increased from 16 to 19 teams. You're probably not old enough to remember, but this EXACT discussion took place when the final 8 came in with the same "rewarding mediocrity" arguments. Give the regressives one year, and none of them were talking about it.

My advice is give it a chance.

so why have we decided to reduce the methetmatical probability for clubs that finish 7th and 8th?

Using your formula we've halved the chance of clubs finishing 7th and 8th winning the premiership.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I blame the media. Every year you can predict the news cycles.

Night GF, Wildcard Round, trade week (which now has coverage during the finals extensively), rule changes.

The AFL typically float these ideas a year or two early and have a few lapdog journos push it as a good idea (Think Gerard Whateley).

The AFL pushed this and so did the media and now we are stuck with it.

"should we bring back State of Origin"

 

[Dan26]

Dude, assuming every match is 50/50 is not "a lot of homework".

There's no performance gradient, no factoring of home grounds, the tree multiplies probabilities as if every match outcome is independent of previous ones. It assumes bracket symmetry. Most critically there is an issue of sample-space distortion: introducing an extra week does not mean two more 50/50 matchups. It changes rest days, travel, and fatigue.

My advice is all those arguments in the past that you smugly thought you'd won are actually examples of people being exhausted by your bullishness.

Very true. When you factor in home ground advantage and the fact that some teams are better than others, as well as travel, the system becomes even fairer because the probabilities are spread out even more. Using betting odds from betfair (and calculating the probabilities based on that) is probably the best way. For exmaple a team starting at $1.30 is a 76% chance of winning.

But that's not how you work out the probabilities of the finals system. That's because when looking at the way the system works you are looking at double chances, how many knockout finals are required to win etc which is why, for the purposes of the exercise we assume all matches are 50-50 (even if in reality they're not).

So, for example, the old finals 5 system that existed from 1972-1990 was as follows:

1st - 37.5%
2nd -18.7%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 6.25%
5th - 6.25%

 

[Dan26]

so why have we decided to reduce the methetmatical probability for clubs that finish 7th and 8th?

Using your formula we've halved the chance of clubs finishing 7th and 8th winning the premiership.

Correct.

7th and 8th used to have to win 4 knockout games to win the premiership: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 6.25%

Now they have to win 5 knockout games 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 3.125%

 

[Purple Suit]

This is the fourth time I've seen this now and it still proves exactly SFA...

You mentioned the VFL is a small sample size. While that may be the case, it's the only empirical evidence available, and it would suggest it has added nothing.

The name alone tells you the AFL aren't doing this for any sort of equity reasons.

The AFL have never done anything for equity reasons.

 

[The Punter]

With all the people not going, it's going to be so easy to get a ticket to the first week of finals next year.

 

[joe444]

A response then?

I've already given mine, but to summarise - no 10th placed team should be given even a chance to win an 18-team competition. And even if I am to be reassured that they "can't win it anyway", their participation has knock-on effects and, for the time-being, entrenches the double-bye that does seem to have distorted results. Since 2016, a disproportionate number of teams appear to have benefitted from playing four weeks in a row.

A final 10 for a 20 team comp? Sure - let's divide the league into two conferences. Perfect.

But this is not that, so why should I be in favour of it when it is introduced at the expense of better options?

Edit: I mean the thinking of the pro-wild-card line seems to be absurd - a finalist should both deserve and hold a chance of winning the whole thing. No team's participation should be justified on the basis that they can't and shouldn't win it.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Correct.

7th and 8th used to have to win 4 knockout games to win the premiership: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 6.25%

Now they have to win 5 knockout games 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 3.125%

So the 2 places that have won the premiership twice in the 26 years this system has been in place have now had their chances of winning the flag halved.

I'll reiteriate, what's the point?

 

[Purple Suit]

I'm old enough to remember, and we had some rubbish finals, 1st v 8th lol in a 15 team comp

Then under the current system beginning in 2000 no one outside the top 4 made the GF, until we brought in the pre finals bye in 2016

Since then we've had great finals series, unpredictable... we've FINALLY got it right, the league has grown into producing a viable final 8

So why stuff it up again for the sake of a few more $$ which will just go straight into AFL exec's pockets?

And no don't list those fn probabilities again

Does it really stuff it up much though to make it nearly impossible to win it from 7-10? It keeps crap team interested for longer and fills in the bye. It still give the top 6 massive advantage and those teams should be well placed to win the flag which seems right.

Sure, they could have waited till Tassie entered but the AFL likes money too much.

 

[Dan26]

It's not 3.125%. If the odds of them winning each game is 3/1 which is likely that gives a 0.41% chance of winning 5 in a row.

In reality you're right, but that's not how you work out the probabilites, because when doing so we are not factoring in the difficulty of games (because that is an opinion and therefore not technically measurable). We are factoring in the things that we know. For example, some teams have double chances, some need to win 4 games, some need to win 5 games etc. And we do it from that.

You can use betting odds (which is the collective opinion of punters) but that is still an opinion. It's not really how finals-system probabilities are calculated.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

I reckon it's fantastic.

The pre finals bye was crap, and now we have two games to enjoy.

By that logic, would you support a top 18 so we get 6 extra games?

Who cares about the integrity of the actual competition if we can call every game a final. May as well give the best player from every team a Brownlow too. Or even better, a weekly Brownlow (for all those sweet gambling dollars).

 

[The Punter]

I've already given mine, but to summarise - no 10th placed team should be given even a chance to win an 18-team competition. And even if I am to be reassured that they "can't win it anyway", their participation has knock-on effects and, for the time-being, entrenches the double-bye that does seem to have distorted results. Since 2016, a disproportionate number of teams appear to have benefitted from playing four weeks in a row.

A final 10 for a 20 team comp? Sure - let's divide the league into two conferences. Perfect.

But this is not that, so why should I be in favour of it when it is introduced at the expense of better options?

Edit: I mean the thinking of the majority seems to be absurd - a finalist should have both deserved and hold a chance of winning the whole thing. No team's participation should be justified on the basis that they can't and shouldn't win it.

The double bye will benefit the best performing teams of the season.

But I am happy to hear alternatives and why you believe them to be better. If you have already posted them, then let me know and I'll find the posts.

 

[Carn The Berries]

By that logic, would you support a top 18 so we get 6 extra games?

Who cares about the integrity of the actual competition if we can call every game a final. May as well give the best player from every team a Brownlow too. Or even better, a weekly Brownlow (for all those sweet gambling dollars).

Nick Daicos likes this

 

[Dan26]

So the 2 places that have won the premiership twice in the 26 years this system has been in place have now had their chances of winning the flag halved.

I'll reiteriate, what's the point?

Well, when you increase the teams in the finals, the probabilities are shared amongst more teams. This is not unusual, or controversial.

When the final-6 came in, 1st had their chances of winning the premiership reduced from 37.5% to 25%. 6th all of a sudden had a 6.25% chance, up from zero.

When the final-8 came in, 1st chances dropped further to 18.75%.

The AFL has increased the amount of teams in the finals numerous times. This is not unusual in the slightest.

 

[compass]

I would like to congratulate the AFL for not being stuck in the past, being innovative and most importantly, not listening to populist conservatives views.

The wildcard weekend is well overdue.

Why play meaningless home and away games late in the season when we can have teams battling to get a wild card berth. Or teams trying to secure a top 6 position.

Many home and away games that had very little consequence would now have real meaning.

As for “rewarding mediocrely”. In fact it’s punishing mediocrity. Because if your measure of success is making the 8, from now on only the top 6 have a guaranteed place in the final 8. How is that rewarding mediocrity?

You can even argue that the current system rewards mediocrity, because a team that finished 8th has equal mathematical change as a team that finished 5th.

“Cash grab” is another empty slogan that some are throwing around. This cash they’re taking about is what keeps the AFL, from the top tier down to the local clubs, going.

The VFL almost went broke in the 80s because they didn’t understand that they must grow the game if they wanted it to survive and thrive.

What about keeping the game’s traditions? I’m all for keeping traditions, but the current finals 8 has nothing to do with tradition. in fact the finals system had gone through so many changed in the last 150 years that we all lost count. And each time many people riled against it. Some things never change.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Well, when you increase the teams in the finals, the probabilities are shared amongst more teams. This is not unusual, or controversial.

When the final-6 came in, 1st had their chances of winning the premiership reduced from 37.5% to 25%. 6th all of a sudden had a 6.25% chance, up from zero.

When the final-8 came in, 1st chances dropped further to 18.75%.

The AFL has increased the amount of teams in the finals numerous times. This is not unusual in the slightest.

I'm well aware of the impact of the probability of the Top 8 sides by adding 2 teams into the finals. That is exactly my point.

The empirical evidence suggests that 7-8 will win the flag 2 times out of 26... Why is there a need to lower that probability, particularly when the offset is so incrementally small by giving 2 ADDITIONAL teams incredibly small chances?

Do you honestly think the AFL have considered equity at all when making this decision?

 

[Piggy Smalls]

I just had The. Best. Idea. Ever.

If a team is down by less than 10 points at the end of Q4 there should be a wildcard extra time period.

I initially thought it was a bad idea, but then I put the term 'wildcard' in there and thought it looked really progressive after that.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I would like to congratulate the AFL for not being stuck in the past, being innovative and most importantly, not listening to populist conservatives views.

The wildcard weekend is well overdue.

Why play meaningless home and away games late in the season when we can have teams battling to get a wild card berth. Or teams trying to secure a top 6 position.

Many home and away games that had very little consequence would now have real meaning.

As for “rewarding mediocrely”. In fact it’s punishing mediocrity. Because if your measure of success is making the 8, from now on only the top 6 have a guaranteed place in the final 8. How is that rewarding mediocrity?

You can even argue that the current system rewards mediocrity, because a team that finished 8th has equal mathematical change as a team that finished 5th.

“Cash grab” is another empty slogan that some are throwing around. This cash they’re taking about is what keeps the AFL, from the top tier down to the local clubs, going.

The VFL almost went broke in the 80s because they didn’t understand that they must grow the game if they wanted it to survive and thrive.

What about keeping the game’s traditions? I’m all for keeping traditions, but the current finals 8 has nothing to do with tradition. in fact the finals system had gone through so many changed in the last 150 years that we all lost count. And each time many people riled against it. Some things never change.

I daresay the vast majority of local clubs would say this is being done very badly, especially in the country.

The AFL is nowhere near "going broke" they don't need the revenue, and based on what has happened in the last 10-20 years, they are unlikely to invest any incremental funds for the betterment of the game.

 

[CCurnow3picks]

Does winning a wildcard game count as breaking our 20+ year finals win drought?

Asking for a friend.

Yes but it comes with one of these “*”.

In your case “**”.