AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[Scotland]

It's not a wild card, it's just a final 10. The NBA did it during covid to keep teams interested when they had a shortened season and teams didn't want to go to the bubble in Florida knowing they would just finish 9th and miss the playoffs and just stuck with it because 10 teams out of 30 not trying to win looks better than 12-14 of them.

If the AFL legitimately want a wild card they need to have conferences, seedings, an in season tournament etc. so it isn't just the top 10 teams. Freo made the finals because they won 16 games. We didn't because we won 1. It's not like there is some 'best team from WA gets in' rule. The only 'wild card' available to us is to win another 11+ games.

I don't hate the idea though. The AFL is pretty even and with an 18 team, 23 game season it is never fair. All of Freo, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, WB, GWS went into the last round a chance of missing the 8 and Sydney were better than a 12 win record suggests after missing key players early in the season.

 

[Dan26]

This is just horrible logic and maths. Totally incorrect.

If you are going to use probability you would need to do a like for like statistical analysis of past data. The probability of a team winning from each position on the ladder under our current system will give you a baseline, and then you can start extrapolating about how it will effect the teams in 7-10. 7 and 8 will get worse chances, their probability is diluted by having to play an extra game with no bye. 9 and 10 will have roughly the same chance as 7 and 8. The probability of each ladder position from 6 to 1 will remain unchanged as their finals series won't change at all.

You're schooling me on maths? lol. It's not incorrect at all. The probabilities are what they are. You can't account for variables like travel, difficulty of opponent in system modelling because they are opinions. Bookmakers account for them, and the betting odds reflect opinions.

Mathematical models of finals systems take into account the STATISTICAL advantages. For example, 1st-4th have a second chance if they lose and a guaranteed week off if they win. 5th and 6th need to win 4 knockout games, 7th-10th need to win 5 knockout games. Those are STATISTICAL advantages IN-BUILT into the model of the system, which is where the probabilities are framed. You are welcome to use bookmaker odds to frame your own probability based on the bookmakers opinion of the probability of winning the matches. But that is not related to the statistical advanatags built into the working of the system.

Hope that clears it up for you. The probabilities are the statistical advantages built into the working of the finals system.

 

[Dan26]

Why should 7th have the punishment of playing another game when they may be 3-4 wins better than 10th?

It makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. If the number of teams in the finals increases, the mathematical probability is shared amongst more teams. This has happened many times before.

You could argue why should 1st go from a 37.5% chance of winning the premiership in the final-5 to a 25% chance in the final 6, to an 18.75% chance in the final-8? Because that's what happens when more teams join the AFL, and the AFL then adds more finalists. The pie is shared amongst more teams.

 

[Ricketz]

You're schooling me on maths? lol. It's not incorrect at all. The probabilities are what they are. You can't account for variables like travel, difficulty of opponent in system modelling because they are opinions. Bookmakers account for them, and the betting odds reflect opinions.

Mathematical models of finals systems take into account the STATISTICAL advantages. For example, 1st-4th have a second chance if they lose and a guaranteed week off if they win. 5th and 6th need to win 4 knockout games, 7th-10th need to win 5 knockout games. Those are STATISTICAL advantages IN-BUILT into the model of the system, which is where the probabilities are framed. You are welcome to use bookmaker odds to frame your own probability based on the bookmakers opinion of the probability of winning the matches. But that is not related to the statistical advanatags built into the working of the system.

Hope that clears it up for you. The probabilities are the statistical advantages built into the working of the finals system.

Yes, someone has to. You keep trotting out these rubbish numbers, and you yourself admitted they aren't realistic. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make them more credible. You are assigning arbitrary weightings to each positional chance - I read at one point you had each team at .5 for each opponent. That's not how either statistical analysis or probabilities work.

The statistical probability of a team under our current system winning from 7th position is 1/26. Under this new system it will be less than that.

The statistical probability of any team winning from below 7th is exactly 0, based on the only data we have.

 

[Dan26]

Even if in reality they are not.

So, your numbers are meaningless, not based in reality.

No, the numbers are based on the reality of the in-built statistical advantages built into the system.

For example, an in-built statistical advantage is that 5th-and 6th need to win 4 knockout finals (a 6.25% chance), and 7th-10th need to win 5 knockout finals (a 3.125% chance)

Adjacent to that, there are opinion based bookmaker odds (which reflect opinion of punters) which can be used but they only reflect opinion, not in-built mathematical advantages built into the system. These take into account home ground advantage, strength of the opponent etc. But they are opinions.

In-built statistical advantages in the working of the system give 5th and 6th double the chances of winning the premiership compared to 7th,8th,9th and 10th.

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%

 

[Oraaaaazio]

You're schooling me on maths? lol. It's not incorrect at all. The probabilities are what they are. You can't account for variables like travel, difficulty of opponent in system modelling because they are opinions. Bookmakers account for them, and the betting odds reflect opinions.

Mathematical models of finals systems take into account the STATISTICAL advantages. For example, 1st-4th have a second chance if they lose and a guaranteed week off if they win. 5th and 6th need to win 4 knockout games, 7th-10th need to win 5 knockout games. Those are STATISTICAL advantages IN-BUILT into the model of the system, which is where the probabilities are framed. You are welcome to use bookmaker odds to frame your own probability based on the bookmakers opinion of the probability of winning the matches. But that is not related to the statistical advanatags built into the working of the system.

Hope that clears it up for you. The probabilities are the statistical advantages built into the working of the finals system.

Yes you can, and those who run predictive models do.

I used to dabble in it and have a few connections who still do it to a much deeper level than I ever did and they account for many variables - including (not limited to): individual player ratings to rate strength of a selected team, team/form ratings, home ground advantage etc.

Of course they can account for difficulty of opponents as they are rating all 18 teams, so they have a rating for the opposition.

These factors are not opinion based and all come from analysis of previous data and back testing these ratings/inputs etc.

 

[Balsam]

Of course it needs to change.

We have added (soon to be) three more teams to the league and not changed the amount of finalists. Of course it has to change. It's not a 16 team league anymore. With that comes change.

The big problem is that we should never have added the last two teams in the first place.

The moment the competition stopped have all teams play each other twice, it ceased to be a fair competition.

Can you imagine what would happen if the EPL decided to do similar? "Welcome to the Premier League and congratulations on being promoted. BTW, you only play Liverpool and Man U once this season, and both games are at their home ground."

There would be riots across the UK.

 

[Dan26]

Yes, someone has to. You keep trotting out these rubbish numbers, and you yourself admitted they aren't realistic. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make them more credible. You are assigning arbitrary weightings to each positional chance - I read at one point you had each team at .5 for each opponent. That's not how either statistical analysis or probabilities work.

The statistical probability of a team under our current system winning from 7th position is 1/26. Under this new system it will be less than that.

The statistical probability of any team winning from below 7th is exactly 0, based on the only data we have.

You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying, so I'll say it again. Listen closely.

There are bookmaker odds which reflect what you are talking about. Strength of opponent, home ground etc.

And there are IN-BUILT statistical advantages built into the model. And in-built advantage is the top 4 getting a second chance. That is an in-built mathematical advantage. 5th and 6th being required to win 4 games instead of 5 for th-10th is an in-bult statistical advantage that can be measured by the model.

The old final-4 and final-5 system were devised by Ken McIntyre. The VFL consulted him and he provided them with the mathematical probabilities, from which the AFL made their decisions.

Every system ever decided has built-in statistical advantages built into the system for some teams INDEPENDENT of the bookmaker probabilities which reflect the things that you are talking about.

 

[Ricketz]

Of course it makes sense. If the number of teams in the finals increases, the mathematical probability is shared amongst more teams. This has happened many times before.

You could argue why should 1st go from a 37.5% chance of winning the premiership in the final-5 to a 25% chance in the final 6, to an 18.75% chance in the final-8? Because that's what happens when more teams join the AFL, and the AFL then adds more finalists. The pie is shared amongst more teams.

Please stop. The statistical probability of winning the GF from 1st position is 6/26.

 

[Ricketz]

No, the numbers are based on the reality of the in-built statistical advantages built into the system.

For example, an in-built statistical advantage is that 5th-and 6th need to win 4 knockout finals (a 6.25% chance), and 7th-10th need to win 5 knockout finals (a 3.125% chance)

Adjacent to that, there are opinion based bookmaker odds (which reflect opinion of punters) which can be used but they only reflect opinion, not in-built mathematical advantages built into the system. These take into account home ground advantage, strength of the opponent etc. But they are opinions.

In-built statistical advantages in the working of the system give 5th and 6th double the chances of winning the premiership compared to 7th,8th,9th and 10th.

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%

I have already addressed why these numbers are just made up.

 

[Dan26]

Yes you can, and those who run predictive models do.

I used to dabble in it and have a few connections who still do it to a much deeper level than I ever did and they account for many variables - including (not limited to): individual player ratings to rate strength of a selected team, team/form ratings, home ground advantage etc.

Of course they can account for difficulty of opponents as they are rating all 18 teams, so they have a rating for the opposition.

These factors are not opinion based and all come from analysis of previous data and back testing these ratings/inputs etc.

Bookmakers use that all the time. I agree. As a full time professional gambler it's kinda my thing.

But those boomkaker odds are INDEPENDENT of the in-built statistical advantages built into the system for certain teams. Those are the odds which reflect the statistical advantages of the system.

 

[Ricketz]

You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying, so I'll say it again. Listen closely.

There are bookmaker odds which reflect what you are talking about. Strength of opponent, home ground etc.

And there are IN-BUILT statistical advantages built into the model. And in-built advantage is the top 4 getting a second chance. That is an in-built mathematical advantage. 5th and 6th being required to win 4 games instead of 5 for th-10th is an in-bult statistical advantage that can be measured by the model.

The old final-4 and final-5 system were devised by Ken McIntyre. The VFL consulted him and he provided them with the mathematical probabilities, from which the AFL made their decisions.

Every system ever decided has built-in statistical advantages built into the system for some teams INDEPENDENT of the bookmaker probabilities which reflect the things that you are talking about.

Book maker odds mean nothing. They aren't based on the chances of any individual team's circumstances alone, and are manipulated by the speculation of people who think they can make money from gambling and the people who actually make money from gambling.

 

[VL3OJ]

Are ASADA drug testing the wrong people within the AFL ranks?

You would need to be on some sort of illegal mind-altering substance, perhaps a few, to come up with this unexplained logic.

Next will be the best of 7 grand finals, one in each state excluding Tasmania as they don't have a lid so it will be Darwin and Island State of Palau for the other two.
#DoneWithDillon

 

[Dan26]

Please stop. The statistical probability of winning the GF from 1st position is 6/26.

Here are the statistical in-built advantages for every system. They reflect double chances, the number of games needed to win, as calculated by Ken McIntyre,

Final-4
1st - 37.5%
2nd - 37.5%
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%

Final-5
1st - 37.5%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 25%
4th -6.25%
5th - 6.25%

Final-6 (1991)
1st - 25%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 18.75%
5th - 6.25%
6th - 6.25%

Final-6 (1992 and 1993)
1st - 25%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 12.5%
6th - 6.25%

Final 8 1994-1999
1st - 18.75%
2nd - 18.75 %
3rd -15.625
4th 12.5%
5th 12.5%
6th 9.375%
7th 6.25%
8th 6.25%

Final-8 2000-2025
1st - 18.75%
2nd - 18.75 %
3rd -18.75%
4th 18.75%
5th 6.25%
6th 6.25%
7th 6.25%
8th 6.25%

Final-10 2026
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%

 

[Dan26]

Book maker odds mean nothing. They aren't based on the chances of any individual team's circumstances alone, and are manipulated by the speculation of people who think they can make money from gambling and the people who actually make money from gambling.

Exactly mate. They are opinion based. The odds I am showing are the in-built mathematical advantages built into the systems (as devised by Ken McIntyre) that exist independent of the opinion of the public reflected in the bookies odds.

Fr example, the old final 5:

1st 37.5%
2nd 25%
3rd 25%
4th 6.25%
5th 6.25%

 

[Ricketz]

Here are the statistical in-built advantages for every system. They reflect double chances, the number of games needed to win, as calculated by Ken McIntyre,

Final-4
1st - 37.5%
2nd - 37.5%
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%

Final-5
1st - 37.5%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 25%
4th -6.25%
5th - 6.25%

Final-6 (1991)
1st - 25%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 18.75%
5th - 6.25%
6th - 6.25%

Final-6 (1992 and 1993)
1st - 25%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 18.75%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 12.5%
6th - 6.25%

Final 8 1994-1999
1st - 18.75%
2nd - 18.75 %
3rd -15.625
4th 12.5%
5th 12.5%
6th 9.375%
7th 6.25%
8th 6.25%

Final-8 2000-2025
1st - 18.75%
2nd - 18.75 %
3rd -18.75%
4th 18.75%
5th 6.25%
6th 6.25%
7th 6.25%
8th 6.25%

Final-10 2026
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%

Wrong. Out of 26 finals series only 1 team has ever won it from 7th and none have won it from below 7th. 6 teams have won it from 1st.

That's real world data. Your numbers are made up.

 

[Dan26]

I have already addressed why these numbers are just made up.

Those numbers are not "made up." Made up would imply pulling numbers out of this air.

The fact that double chances exist, the fact that some teams are required to win less finals than others and are given certain advantages can be statistically measured in how the system is constructed. That's what those odds represent. They don't represent bookmaker probabilities

Opinon can be added on top of that if you wanted to, and I'm not against that. But they just reflect opinion.

All finals systems have a mathematical model, with in-built advantages in how the system is constructed.

 

[kirky]

Stupid half round in March
Stupid last touch OOB rule
Stupid wildcard finals
My bullshit bingo card overfloweth.
Multiball powershots when?

FFS, it isn’t last touch, it is last disposal. There is a massive difference.

 

[Dan26]

Wrong. Out of 26 finals series only 1 team has ever won it from 7th and none have won it from below 7th. 6 teams have won it from 1st.

That's real world data. Your numbers are made up.

The number are not meant to represent real world data, which is more reflected in bookmaker probabilities. The numbers I'm posting represent IN-BUILT mathematical advantages built into the system that advantages certain teams above others. That's what the probabilities represent

The old Argus system for example which existed up until 1930 had a massive advantage for first. They were guaranteed to be in the Grand Final no matter what. It was an unusual system, and the AFL eventually went with the McIntyre Final-4 devised by mathematician Ken McIntyre, who gace the VFL the same probabilties I have posted here myself.

 

[randyzany]

All this does is make life easier for teams that lose the Qualifying Finals in Week 1. I hate Nosferatu Adam Silver for introducing this lame concept in the NBA, but at least basketball is not a physically bruising game giving them somewhat of a chance however small. Unlike footy where playing high intensity games wears on players quite a bit so it'll be a miracle if any of the AFL Play In winners ever achieve much.

AFL Play In winners are destined to be cannon fodder and are only an excuse for broadcast right holders to sell more ads to advertisers. That's pretty much it, it's a complete waste of time for actual footy lovers.

The sort of weak reasoning behind introducing the Play In in the NBA is to discourage teams from tanking as early as mid/late February and therefore give less of an advantage to teams that play more bottom feeders than those that don't in the last 2 months of the season. As more teams have hopes of making the Play Offs late in the season it is assumed more teams will play the season out until when it is no longer mathematically possible, which is the last 2 weeks.

It's a pretty weak stupid reason because NBA teams just pace themselves and produce many more lacklustre mediocre games during the season. Playing 82 games is a grinding marathon and this makes it easier for teams to put up more subpar performances because teams are never really out of playoffs contention. Compared to how the season played out before the Play In was introduced by Silver, teams had to make more of an effort to remain in contention and be within reach of the Top 8.

I don't think that logic applies to footy so this move is purely for money.

 

[Westend]

Stupid concept

and it should not be called a final...wildcard teams playing to get into the finals for me

 

[Dazza the Viking]

Wild Card = Mickey Mouse

 

[010203]

You'll need a paywall bypasser but Jake Niall has hit the nail on the head: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...card-round-is-a-bad-idea-20251110-p5n8z7.html

 

[010203]

 

[Big Blood]

I remember expansion of the eight was talked about a dozen years ago and Mick Malthouse saying 'why don't we give everyone a hit?'

What a disaster Andrew Dillon has turned out to be. Whatever his faults Gil had solid judgement. Would never have introduced anything like this that is purely a sop to broadcasters and adds nothing to the comp.