AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[beev]

One team misses finals with 14 wins and the AFL do this.

I bet 9th/10th are 50% win loss or worse and the broadcasters complain about the standard of ‘finals’.

 

[damochandler]

Sydney finished 10th and they were not even close to a finals team

HQ are have had a shocker the last 10 years. They’ll keep patting themselves on the back because membership numbers are up, but the true number for those are about half of what they are. MRO is a shit show, the rules are a joke, the fixturing is pathetic.

 

[deck]

Assuming the AFL still do their stupid floating fixture for the last few rounds, that can be corrected for at least..

How so. The floating fixture for the last round is for when teams play not who you play. If your scheduled to have the bye then you will still have a bye.

The floating fixture for rounds 16-22 are set well before the end of round 15. You can't just adjust the weekends of full rounds when you probably won't know the scenario until very late in the year.

 

[St 07]

What an absolute joke. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I wonder who benefits most from this...hmm

With Geelongs built in advantages, they will never finish lower than 10th so this pretty much guarantees they never miss finals again.

 

[deck]

Also what if a team is unable to improve from 10th but is scheduled to play a team that's vying for a top 2 or 4 spot in the last round. 10th will just tank and be fresh for the match up against 7th.

Exactly. They same reason they came up with a bye week. Sydney in 10th were in this exact position this year.

 

[Rotayjay]

**** OFF

Dickheads ruining our game in yet another way. It's not ****en America.

 

[Royces Hart]

The reaction just goes to show you that the fans know nothing. If the fans were in charge, they wouldn't want to change anything.

• There was opposition to the final-6 when it came in
• There was HUGE opposition to the final-8 when it came in (in the 15 team league in 1994)
• there was opposition to the national competition.
• there was opposition to non-Vic teams getting home finals. I remember Allan McAllister saying that all finals should be played in Victoria and he wasn't alone.
• there was opposition to teams moving out of their traditional home grounds
• there was massive opposition before the first ever night final between Essendon and Carlton in 1993.

etc etc

Virtually every move was opposed by the riff-raff, and every move was in retrospect the right thing to do. I notice the riff-raff is alive in well in here. The "leave-the-game-alone" crowd need to be ignored.

The fans don't like change, but they always come around to it eventually. It'll be the same when the GF is moved to night/twilight. The fans will whine and then get over it in 12 months time.

We had a final-8 in a 16 team league when 50% of the teams made the finals.

We will soon be at 19 teams, so 50% of 19 is 9.5 (rounded up to 10) so 10 is the right number. Keeps more teams involved, less dead -rubbers etc. Same proportion as 8 in the 16-team league.

My opposition is that it is the wrong type of final-10. Should have been a knockout version. But 10 is clearly the right number.

Can you please rank the VFL/AFL finals innovations from strongest to weakest?

I won’t sleep until I know.

 

[Bostonian]

This is Australian Football, not ****ing American Football you complete ****wits.

 

[beside the seaside]

The 4th best team finished 8th this season. They would have been required tl win 3 games consecutively just to make a preliminary final though. Never would have stood a chance under this new model.

What is rewarding? What is it addressing?

It's absolutely pointless.

I don't see your point. Maybe the 4th best team finishes 10th next year.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

So how much do you play each year for your membership?

I have a general admission membership, I barely go, I watch at home mostly. Kayo will be gone at the end of the current F1 season, I have another way to watch it next season.

 

[juss]

So 55% of teams make finals now basically. Statistically its now harder to miss it, than play a final.

Don't like it.

 

[SC_Power]

All sports globally act on the same motivating factors. Adding more importance to in-season games. More finals. More speed. More scoring (hello last touch rule).

Good point. Depends if you have other outlets. National teams. Representative State of Origin that means something. Cup competitions. International club competitions. Olympic Games representation.

Those sports can maintain interest without tampering with the league comp. EPL is the most classic example of this.

AFL has none of the other items. So they have to screw with the league. Depressing.

Will stay with the SANFL and ammo’s for another few seasons I think.

 

[Rotayjay]

It's a disgraceful decision and motivated purely by money, and a desire to imitate America where money rules. America isn't exactly a shining light on the hill these days.

 

[Bostonian]

The reaction just goes to show you that the fans know nothing. If the fans were in charge, they wouldn't want to change anything.

• There was opposition to the final-6 when it came in
• There was HUGE opposition to the final-8 when it came in (in the 15 team league in 1994)
• there was opposition to the national competition.
• there was opposition to non-Vic teams getting home finals. I remember Allan McAllister saying that all finals should be played in Victoria and he wasn't alone.
• there was opposition to teams moving out of their traditional home grounds
• there was massive opposition before the first ever night final between Essendon and Carlton in 1993.

etc etc

Virtually every move was opposed by the riff-raff, and every move was in retrospect the right thing to do. I notice the riff-raff is alive in well in here. The "leave-the-game-alone" crowd need to be ignored.

The fans don't like change, but they always come around to it eventually. It'll be the same when the GF is moved to night/twilight. The fans will whine and then get over it in 12 months time.

We had a final-8 in a 16 team league when 50% of the teams made the finals.

We will soon be at 19 teams, so 50% of 19 is 9.5 (rounded up to 10) so 10 is the right number. Keeps more teams involved, less dead -rubbers etc. Same proportion as 8 in the 16-team league.

My opposition is that it is the wrong type of final-10. Should have been a knockout version. But 10 is clearly the right number.

The final 8 is a waste of time, why the **** are you claiming it like it's some big winning move?

No team has ever won a GF from there so it's a pointless change.

 

[beside the seaside]

So 55% of teams make finals now basically. Statistically its now harder to miss it, than play a final.

Don't like it.

The problem is that the season is so long. So for the last third of the season it is really boring with so many dead games. This decision absolutely makes sense to keep it interesting and they are never going to shorten the season.

 

[juss]

Also the AFL have us over a barrell, because collectively we dont have the balls to do anything about it, e.g. boycott opening round or something

 

[BrownPaperBag]

Jumped

The

Shark

 

[Bostonian]

Bulldogs?

I edited it to won one.

And even then it's made sweet FA difference to the outcome of the seasons when those teams historically have always got booted out early.

How long has the final 8 been going for?

 

[Gasometer]

Thread needs a poll

 

[Cleavy]

How long has the final 8 been going for?

since 1994, but current final system since 2000

 

[tombomb]

Forget 9th and 10th, this just makes it impossible for 7th and 8th to win the flag, if it wasn't already hard enough.

If it wasn't for the passion of the fans and fundamentals of the game, the league would go bankrupt in 6 months under this current administration.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

LOL!

SO we had 50% of teams making it (8 out of 16) from 1995 to 2010.

The AFL have added three new teams, and by creating a final-10, have kept the proportion of finalists as close to 50% as possible given 19 is an odd number (50% of 19 is 9.5)

Which all seems perfectly logical, and no different to the AFL moving from the final-6 (when it was 14 teams) to a final-8 with 16 teams.

And this perfectly logical change in structure to the finals is the "last straw" LOL! Give me a break. Heaven forbid the AFL reduce some dead rubbers and keep more fan engagement for a bit longer, perhaps adding a bit to the TV rights in the process. How horrific.

Take your hyperbole elsewhere, seriously. Last straw, LOL! Give me a break.

Like me, not too many seem to care for what you think in here on this particular topic.

 

[Bostonian]

since 1994, but current final system since 2000

And besides one team in that 25 years bucking that trend they think adding more worse off teams to finals will change that outcome.

 

[Dirty Bird]

A final-10 is a good idea. It was 8 teams making it in a 16 team league. We have added three teams yet not increased the finalists, so it makes sense to have 10 making it in a (soon to be) 19 team league.

Really? You're using modern history for your argument. Did you bother to look at the totality of finals history?
You realise that there's only been 3 years where more than 50% of the league has made finals? Only 1 of which was in a non-war year?

Since we went to a proper finals series in 1908

1908-1914 - 4 of 10 (40%) made finals
1915 - 4 of 8 (50%) made finals
1916 - 4 of 4 (100%) made finals
1917 - 4 of 6 (67%) made finals
1918 - 4 of 8 (50%) made finals
1919-1924 - 4 of 9 (44%) made finals
1925-1941 - 4 of 12 (33%) made finals
1942-1943 - 4 of 11 (36%) made finals
1944-1971 - 4 of 12 (33%) made finals
1972-1986 - 5 of 12 (42%) made finals
1987-1990 - 5 of 14 (36%) made finals
1991-1993 - 6 of 15 (40%) made finals
1994 - 8 of 15 (53%) made finals
1995-2010 - 8 of 16 (50%) made finals
2011 - 8 of 17 (47%) made finals
2012-2025 - 8 of 18 (44%) made finals