AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[Dan26]

Not enough of a reward for the top 4. Should get a double chance if you implement any system a double chance for the top 4 is easily the best one. If that means your 7-10 play an extra game so be it. Simple solution don’t come

.

 

[Chiz]

Not enough of a reward for the top 4. Should get a double chance if you implement any system a double chance for the top 4 is easily the best one. If that means your 7-10 play an extra game so be it. Simple solution don’t come there

Why does the extra reward for the top teams have to be a double chance and why does it have to be the top 4?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why does the extra reward for the top teams have to be a double chance and why does it have to be the top 4?

You have earned that position through the H one and Away. You deserve one poor one and you get a second chance. The emphasis should not be on making it fairer for teams 7-10. You win it from there great but it should be practically impossible. Come in the top 6, it rewards season long form with an extra benefit on top in the top 4. They have got this system right as much as id have just kept the top 8. If they had to go top 10, this is the one.

 

[speedpeck23]

You have earned that position through the H one and Away. You deserve one poor one and you get a second chance. The emphasis should not be on making it fairer for teams 7-10. You win it from there great but it should be practically impossible. Come in the top 6, it rewards season long form with an extra benefit on top in the top 4. They have got this system right as much as id have just kept the top 8. If they had to go top 10, this is the one.

Agree. The main advantage with the WildCard is more teams a chance to make it longer into the season and the Top 8 at end of Home and Away get at least one home final....critical to maintaining membership base....in the end its still only one team wins the flag.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Agree. The main advantage with the WildCard is more teams a chance to make it longer into the season and the Top 8 at end of Home and Away get at least one home final....critical to maintaining membership base....in the end its still only one team wins the flag.

Yep rather than complaining, come top 4-6 and then there's no need to whinge. I'm here or there with the top 10, but lets be real you aren't winning outside the top 6 and nor should you really, you haven't been the best side or close to it all year. If you are good enough to win a wildcard, then three finals to win it so be it but that's your path.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

NFL systems work because you play a common set of opponents within your division, ie, once you win your division, there's no doubt you had the best season of those 4 teams because everyone had the opportunity to play the same teams.

The AFL doesn't want a straight knockout system because it knows fixturing effects play such a large part that relatively often teams finish above others while having a worse season, just better double-ups and home ground advantage (like Gold Coast last year).

 

[Dan26]

Not enough of a reward for the top 4. Should get a double chance if you implement any system a double chance for the top 4 is easily the best one. If that means your 7-10 play an extra game so be it. Simple solution don’t come there

Double chances are shit. We've had a knockout GF for 100 years and 2 knockout prelims for the last 32 years. That means that under the old final-8 & the current final-10, if the top team wins 3 finals, 2 of them (66%) are knockout where their season can end after one loss anyway. The NFL proves that double chances are not needed. A week off is the reward and doubles your probability of winning.

This idiotic obsession over "double chances" (which is just cultural, not bound in any real logic) must end.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Double chances are shit. We've had a knockout GF for 100 years and 2 knockout prelims for the last 32 years. That means that under the old final-8 & the current final-10, if the top team wins 3 finals, 2 of them (66%) are knockout where theur season can end after one loss anyway. The NFL proves that double chances are not needed.

No the NFL doesn't prove anything. It's a shorter season in the NFL they can do with the no double chances, but they still have massive legups for terrible divisions, we have sides with losing records hosting first rounds there. Your system has a massive flaw- it's giving way too much of a chance to sides 7th to 10th, they don't deserve it (these should be less than 2%). Come top 6 then you get the advantages. Much rather this system than your artificially plateauing chances all the way from 1-10. You have not rewarded the side whose 24 match Home and Away form deserves that. There is little reward. It's why there has to be double chances.

 

[Dan26]

No the NFL doesn't prove anything. It's a shorter season in the NFL they can do with the no double chances, but they still have massive legups for terrible divisions, we have sides with losing records hosting first rounds there. Your system has a massive flaw- it's giving way too much of a chance to sides 7th to 10th, they don't deserve it (these should be less than 2%). Come top 6 then you get the advantages. Much rather this system than your artificially plateauing chances all the way from 1-10. You have not rewarded the side whose 24 match Home and Away form deserves that. There is little reward. It's why there has to be double chances.

You do not need second chances for losing to suitably reward teams. If that were the case we wouldn't have a knockout Grand Final and a knockout Prelim Final, where the top team can currently be eliminated in the Prelim without getting a second chance. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing. Double chances are shit. That's why we all love the Grand Final and Prelims - because of the knockout nature of it.

 

[Cyclops]

Clubs were given a bye before finals, why? Wasn't it to make finals better?

So by the AFL's own logic they have added 2 poor quality games, and in turn the two winners will play badly the next week.

Dilute the quality of games in favour of quantity. They have done it with the number of clubs too. More games, suckers, forget having decent sides as the expansion franchises get draft picks and academies.

The current AFL commission run the game like 1990s wall street brokers, churn as much product for as much turnover as possible.

The game is being spread thin, cut into tiny pieces and flogged off by the gram.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You do not need second chances for losing to suitably reward teams. If that were the case we wouldn't have a knockout Grand Final and a knockout Prelim Final, where the top team can currently be eliminated in the Prelim without getting a second chance. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing. Double chances are shit. That's why we all love the Grand Final and Prelims - because of the knockout nature of it.

No we love the prelims and GF as the best sides get through. Your system has a huge flaw and you know it, it's an attempt to get a side from 7-10 through. To use an American sport the finals should be like the NBA lottery was back in the days where the top sides get the biggest chance of the pie. In our sport that is your top 4 who have done it for 24 rounds home and away. They earned the biggest chance to get through. Who cares if a side 7-10 has very little chance, that's what they deserve for coming there, and I'd say the same thing if we came there, don't care. We wouldn't deserve as much of a chance as a team that earned 4th or 5th. You have to reward the home and away season.

 

[Dan26]

There is little reward. It's why there has to be double chances.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the mathematics. You simply don't get it.

Hypothetical knockout final-3

2 vs 3 Prelim final (winner plays first in GF). No double chances. 1st with double the probability

1st - 50%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 25%

Hypothetical knockout final-6

3v6 - semi-final
4v5 - semi final

1st Prelim Final: 1st vs lowest semi-final winner
2nd Prelim Final: 2nd vs highest semi-final winner

Grand Final

Probabilites
1st 25%
2nd 25%
3rd 12.5%
4th 12.5%
5th 12.5%
6th 12.5%

The knockout final 10 has two sets of mathematical probabilities (no different to the final-8), with those with the week off doubling their probability.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Clubs were given a bye before finals, why? Wasn't it to make finals better?

So by the AFL's own logic they have added 2 poor quality games, and in turn the two winners will play badly the next week.

Dilute the quality of games in favour of quantity. They have done it with the number of clubs too. More games, suckers, forget having decent sides as the expansion franchises get draft picks and academies.

The current AFL commission run the game like 1990s wall street brokers, churn as much product for as much turnover as possible.

The game is being spread thin, cut into tiny pieces and flogged off by the gram.

The bye was the single worst thing invented, it so wasn't needed. Why should a team 7th or 8th get to have a bye before finals? They haven't earnt it.

 

[Dan26]

No we love the prelims and GF as the best sides get through. Your system has a huge flaw and you know it, it's an attempt to get a side from 7-10 through.

No it's not. 7th-10 still have a huge difficulty to win 4 finals. Being asked to win 5 finals is too many. 4 finals should be the limit.

For 10th to get through in the superior knockout final-10, they have to beat 7th, then they would have to beat 1st away from home, then they would have to beat 2nd or 3rd away from home. Then they'd have to win the Grand Final. That's why the seeding system is so good. The lower you finish, the more difficult your task becomes because the teams you play are always the best teams if you finished lower.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the mathematics. You simply don't get it.

Hypothetical knockout final-3

2 vs 3 Prelim final (winner plays first in GF). No double chances. 1st with double the probability

1st - 50%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 25%

Hypothetical knockout final-6

3v6 - semi-final
4v5 - semi final

1st Prelim Final: 1st vs lowest semi-final winner
2nd Prelim Final: 2nd vs highest semi-final winner

Grand Final

Probabilites
1st 25%
2nd 25%
3rd 12.5%
4th 12.5%
5th 12.5%
6th 12.5%

The knockout final 10 has two sets of mathematical probabilities (no different to the final-8), with those with the week off doubling their probability.

Exactly, it's too streamlined. You have tried to plateau it. 3rd having the same chance as 6th...you don't see an issue with that? Well I have a huge problem with that and boy glad that the AFL used their system which has the top 4 as bigger chances than sides coming 6th and below. 3rd has worked all year to get there, and what's their reward...oh yep the same chance as 6th.

Not for me, give us the system where the odds are basically
Top 2-highest percentage
3rd and 4th- next best
5th and 6th- fair bit lower than 3rd and 4th but get a home final
7th and below- less than 2% no more

 

[Dan26]

Exactly, it's too streamlined. You have tried to plateau it. 3rd having the same chance as 6th...you don't see an issue with that? Well I have a huge problem with that and boy glad that the AFL used their system which has the top 4 as bigger chances than sides coming 6th and below. 3rd has worked all year to get there, and what's their reward...oh yep the same chance as 6th.

Not for me, give us the system where the odds are basically
Top 2-highest percentage
3rd and 4th- next best
5th and 6th- fair bit lower than 3rd and 4th but get a home final
7th and below- less than 2% no more

You're not taking into account the seeding. In the traditional NBA playoffs, all 16 teams have the same probability (6.25%) and all need to win 4 play-off series. There is zero mathematical advantage. The mathematical probabilities reflect each game having 50-50 odds. The reality is that under the knockout final-10 there is an enormous difference in difficulty of opponent between finishing 1st and 6th despite the top 6 technically having the same probability.

To make the Grand Final:
1st have to win a home match against 8th, 9th or 10th
1st then have to win a home match against the lowest remaining team (who can't be higher than 4th)

To make the Grand Final:
6th have to win an away match against 3rd
6t then have to win an away match against most likely 1st or 2nd.

The mathematical probabilities only assume all matches are 50-50. The reality is that 1st has an exponentially easier path to the Grand Final.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You're not taking into account the seeding. In the traditional NBA playoffs, all 16 teams have the same probability (6.25%) and all need to win 4 play-off series. There is zero mathematical advantage. The mathematical probabilities reflect each game having 50-50 odds. The reality is that under the knockout final-10 there is an enormous difference in difficulty of opponent between finishing 1st and 6th despite the top 6 technically having the same probability.

To make the Grand Final:
1st have to win a home match against 8th, 9th or 10th
1st then have to win a home match against the lowest remaining team (who can't be higher than 4th)

To make the Grand Final:
6th have to win an away match against 3rd
6t then have to win an away match against most likely 1st or 2nd.

The mathematical probabilities only assume all matches are 50-50. The reality is that 1st has an exponentially easier path to the Grand Final.

It doesn't matter, there is no system where 3rd should be the same as 6th regardless of the type of opponent and who is to say the seed ranked 6th isn't harder anyway leading in. That's a huge flaw. It's why the AFL are continuing with protecting the top 4, they earned that protection. The top 4 have more than 12.5% now so why should 3rd and 4th take a haircut so to speak?

It is why the AFL talks about home and away matters and I agree, the system brought in is basically a top 8 lets be real, but 7th to 10th don't get a week off and that's a good thing by the way. If you want the week off you don't half care about regular season games and you qualify in the top 6. If you are good enough to win from 7th or 8th great but there is usually a reason you came 7th in the first place.

 

[Dan26]

It doesn't matter, there is no system where 3rd should be the same as 6th regardless of the type of opponent

Bullshit. Why not? Why can't 3rd and 6th have the same probability? They're separated by three positions.

1,2,3,4 all have the same probability under the final-10. 1st and 4th are separated by 3 positions.

5,6,7,8 all had the same mathematical probability under the final-8. 5th and 8th are separated by 3 positions

3rd and 6th are separated by 3 positions. How is the difference between 3-and-6 mathematically any different from 1-4 or 5-8? It's exactly the same.

In the NFL 14-team playoffs, 1st and 2nd have the same mathematical probability (12.5%) and 3rd through to 14th all have the same 6.25% probability.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Bullshit. Why not? Why can't 3rd and 6th have the same probability? They're separated by three positions.

1,2,3,4 all have the same probability under the final-10. 1st and 4th are separated by 3 positions.

5,6,7,8 all had the same mathematical probability under the final-8. 5th and 8th are separated by 3 positions

3rd and 6th are separated by 3 positions. How is the difference between 3-and-6 mathematically any different from 1-4 or 5-8? It's exactly the same.

In the NFL 14-team playoffs, 1st and 2nd have the same mathematical probability (12.5%) and 3rd through to 14th all have the same 6.25% probability.

You keep going to the NFL..it's 18 weeks, that's 6 weeks shorter with conference winners getting home finals off losing years, I mean lol at Tampa's division nearly every season. Why can't third be the same as 6th well how about we look at last season where 6th had what 2 wins less than 3rd. That's fairly common too it's a good win to 2 wins less.

You can't have the same percentage for 3rd and 6th, it's not rewarding the home and away year. You need to have a Triangle (tiered) with odds and the AFL have done it, 1 and 2 the most, 3 and 4 the next, then 5 and 6, then the rest. That needs to be the system, that's what the AFL have done. Doesn't need to be too much more than that. In the end 2 sides out of the top 6 will play in the GF and likely 2 from the top 4, that's great it rewards regular season form

 

[Purple Suit]

Double chances are shit. We've had a knockout GF for 100 years and 2 knockout prelims for the last 32 years. That means that under the old final-8 & the current final-10, if the top team wins 3 finals, 2 of them (66%) are knockout where their season can end after one loss anyway. The NFL proves that double chances are not needed. A week off is the reward and doubles your probability of winning.

This idiotic obsession over "double chances" (which is just cultural, not bound in any real logic) must end.

What are you talking about? There has always been a double chance for the top teams in finals for 125 years. Why change it now when the system works.

 

[Chiz]

You have earned that position through the Home and Away.

There has to be an incentive to finish higher on the ladder, but there's no particular reason why that advantage should go to the top 4, rather than say the top 2 or top 6.

You deserve one poor one and you get a second chance.

Why? As someone else has pointed out, if your poor game happens to be in the preliminary final or the grand final, bad luck.

There are other ways to reward teams for finishing higher on the ladder, including:

• a guaranteed week off
• home finals
• easier opponents

The emphasis should not be on making it fairer for teams 7-10.

There has to be a balance between rewarding teams for finishing higher while ensuring that the eventual premiership winner has to work hard to get there.

Under Dan26's knockout system, 7-10 would have to win four consecutive games, including at least two away from home and one vs a top side coming off a bye. That's already pretty unlikely - I suspect you might see a team from 7-10 win once every 10-15 years in this system. Under the AFL's system, 7-10 have to win five consecutive games (with the odds against them), which probably happens once every 50-100 years.

You win it from there great but it should be practically impossible.

It should be difficult, but there has to be a realistic hope.

Come in the top 6, it rewards season long form with an extra benefit on top in the top 4. They have got this system right as much as id have just kept the top 8. If they had to go top 10, this is the one.

The knockout final 10 distributes the benefits more fairly according to ladder position, with a clearer benefit to finishing top 2.

 

[10571z]

The top 8 was fine. This is just another desperate attempt by the worst AFL administration we have ever had to try and do something exciting while failing miserably.

Round 0
Stand
Wildcard

all horrendous ideas

 

[Chiz]

What are you talking about? There has always been a double chance for the top teams in finals for 125 years. Why change it now when the system works.

The double chance makes sense in a final 4. As soon as you go beyond that it creates issues.

 

[Seattle Mariners]

I assume those dead against the Wildcard weekend will not be watching the games, even if their team is participating.

 

[Cyclops]

The bye was the single worst thing invented, it so wasn't needed. Why should a team 7th or 8th get to have a bye before finals? They haven't earnt it.

You have a point, I think byes aren't ideal, but what you and I think isnt at issue here.

The AFL thinks byes are a good idea. Except when theyre not.

There should be a fair fixture. Except for Gather Round and Collingwood blockbusters.

Decisions are made, reasons given, but the reasons don't matter when the next decision is made.