EDDIE MCGUIRE proposes 6-week, 21 match finals series with 16 teams. It's a mess and here's why.

[Atomboy]

I like it but I would go one better by scrapping the regular season and it’s quaint outdated notion of one finals series.

Let’s just play 4 of Eddie’s finals series over 24 weeks for 4 Premiership Cups in one year !!.

Much easier for sides to then go back-to-back, minnow clubs to jag extra flags etc.

Can also rotate the 4 GF’s more evenly to Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney. But not Adelaide, that’s just crazy.

 

[Coolangatta]

Or just, for the fixture, everyone plays once. Start the season in April and add more byes.

While all clubs have a bye, have a state of origin game.

Bye week one: Tasmania v South Australia

Bye week two: New South Wales v Queensland

Bye week three: Western Australia v Victoria

Next year you’d change it up, loser of week three game v winner of week two, winner of week one v loser of week two, etc.

Then just re-adjust as you hit 19, then 20 teams.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Here's a radical idea....

Just leave it as it is....

 

[demondavey]

Here's a radical idea....

Just leave it as it is....

Correct! It’s actually the best format

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Correct! It’s actually the best format

No It's not. But any alternative has no chance as silly locked in blockbusters stuff everything up to make the comp fair.

 

[Dan26]

Whilst Eddie's idea is obviously stupid there IS a legitimate case for 10 teams in the finals that can be rationalized quite easily. I've been spruiking a knockout final-10 for years. For those that fancy themselves with numbers, follow along. It might go over the head of a few.

The mathematics of it is quite simple:

Firstly, we work on the assumption that exactly half the teams in the finals creates the best balance between maximizing the importance of games at BOTH the top end and bottom of the ladder. However, half of 18 is 9, which is problematic, so we will get back to that bit later...

Before I get back to why 10 is better than 8 (or at least mathematically identical), we need to look at the other systems, for context.

Eddie's "solution" of 16-2 split creates just as much imbalance as a 2-16 split.


The 16-2, or 2-16 split
With 16 teams making the finals, there is more importance for games at the very bottom of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very top of the ladder.

With 2 teams making the finals there is more importance for games at the very top of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very bottom of the ladder.

The "net importance of all games cumulatively under both the 16-2 and 2-16 scenarios works out the same either way.

The 14-4, or 4-14 split
With 14 teams making the finals, there is more importance for games at the bottom and mid-bottom of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very top or mid-top of the ladder.

With 4 teams making the finals there is more importance for games at the very top and mid-top of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very bottom and mid-bottom of the ladder.

The "net importance of all games cumulatively under both the 14-4 and 4-14 scenarios works out the same either way.

Same with the 12-6 split and 6-12 split etc etc

Okay, so now we get to the 8-10 split which we have now, and the 10-8 split. As you can see from the examples above, both the 8-10 split and the 10-8 split would create the same amount of importance cumulatively across all games.

The current 8-10 split has SLIGHTLY more importance for games at towards the top of the ladder, but there is SLIGHTLY reduced importance for games at the very bottom ladder. The 10-8 split has SLIGHTLY less importance for games at the top of the ladder but SLIGHTLY more importance for teams towards the bottom of the ladder. But it's nowhere near as pronounced as the 2-16 or 16-2 split.

So 8-10 and 10-8, are essentially the same. They are mathematical reversals of one another. The question is: If 9 out of 18 is therefore perfect (but is impractical), and therefore the two options are to "round-down" one to 8, or "round-up" one to 10..... well you obviously round up. You never round down.

So if the two options are 8 or 10 making the finals... you go 10. It's actually quite simple

 

[Xtreme]

May as well do an 18 week season and give the premiership cup to the team with the most wins/highest percentage at the end of the season.

 

[Scotland]

Like how his first grand idea is everybody plays each other once and then we have “exotic” rounds based on rivalries as double ups.

Eddie that’s just what we have now, you just added the word “exotic”.

I like it.

Looks we have the Dockers this week. We've already played them at Optus so I guess this one is in Tahiti.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Whilst Eddie's idea is obviously stupid there IS a legitimate case for 10 teams in the finals that can be rationalized quite easily. I've been spruiking a knockout final-10 for years. For those that fancy themselves with numbers, follow along. It might go over the head of a few.

The mathematics of it is quite simple:

Firstly, we work on the assumption that exactly half the teams in the finals creates the best balance between maximizing the importance of games at BOTH the top end and bottom of the ladder. However, half of 18 is 9, which is problematic, so we will get back to that bit later...

Before I get back to why 10 is better than 8 (or at least mathematically identical), we need to look at the other systems, for context.

Eddie's "solution" of 16-2 split creates just as much imbalance as a 2-16 split.


The 16-2, or 2-16 split
With 16 teams making the finals, there is more importance for games at the very bottom of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very top of the ladder.

With 2 teams making the finals there is more importance for games at the very top of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very bottom of the ladder.

The "net importance of all games cumulatively under both the 16-2 and 2-16 scenarios works out the same either way.

The 14-4, or 4-14 split
With 14 teams making the finals, there is more importance for games at the bottom and mid-bottom of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very top or mid-top of the ladder.

With 4 teams making the finals there is more importance for games at the very top and mid-top of the ladder, but there is REDUCED importance for games at the very bottom and mid-bottom of the ladder.

The "net importance of all games cumulatively under both the 14-4 and 4-14 scenarios works out the same either way.

Same with the 12-6 split and 6-12 split etc etc

Okay, so now we get to the 8-10 split which we have now, and the 10-8 split. As you can see from the examples above, both the 8-10 split and the 10-8 split would create the same amount of importance cumulatively across all games.

The current 8-10 split has SLIGHTLY more importance for games at towards the top of the ladder, but there is SLIGHTLY reduced importance for games at the very bottom ladder. The 10-8 split has SLIGHTLY less importance for games at the top of the ladder but SLIGHTLY more importance for teams towards the bottom of the ladder. But it's nowhere near as pronounced as the 2-16 or 16-2 split.

So 8-10 and 10-8, are essentially the same. They are mathematical reversals of one another. The question is: If 9 out of 18 is therefore perfect (but is impractical), and therefore the two options are to "round-down" one to 8, or "round-up" one to 10..... well you obviously round up. You never round down.

So if the two options are 8 or 10 making the finals... you go 10. It's actually quite simple

Not sure why anyone is trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
What is the issue with 8 teams or 10 teams missing out on finals?
If they really want more money then the best of 3 GF solved that for them.
Yet I wonder why that is not on the table?

 

[Dan26]

Not sure why anyone is trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
What is the issue with 8 teams or 10 teams missing out on finals?
If they really want more money then the best of 3 GF solved that for them.
Yet I wonder why that is not on the table?

The point I was making is that 8 and 10 (or 10 and 8) are essentially mathematical reversals of each other. Just like Eddie's 16-2 system creates just as many imbalances as a 2-16 system.

9 is really the right number (50%) just as 8 was best in a 16 competition. But 9 is impractical.

Therefore, do you round DOWN by one to 8? Or do you round UP to 10?

Obviously, you round up. If 8-10 and 10-8 create just as many imbalances as each other either way, you clearly round up to the higher number.

 

[Scotland]

Wildcard is shit.

There is no wildcard in the context of the AFL finals. Someone heard this word and introduced it to discussions about the fixture and it has been hanging around ever since.

The NFL for example has a 14 team playoff system. You qualify by winning your division or having a top 3 win loss record of the remaining 12 teams in your conference. Tampa and LA Rams won their divisions with 10 wins each. Minnesota, Washington and Green Bay each won 11 or more but ended up as wild cards ranked 5, 6 and 7.

The AFL has no conferences or divisions. If it was split up Victoria and the rest you would have Coll, Geel, Haw, WB 1-2-3-4 on one side of the draw and Bris, Adel, GWS, Freo on the other. Then if you wanted to have 10 or 12 finals teams you might open it up to wildcards in which case Gold Coast, Sydney, Port all have better records than the next best Victorian side. I don't think anyone wants to see Carlton make the finals just for being the 5th best Vic side in 12th.

With the current system there is no advantage other than wins and %. There is no circumstance where Collingwood is on top but Brisbane aren't the second seed because they are in the same pot. So it's a final 6 or 8 or 10 or however many teams you want to involve. The NBA used to have this problem. Dallas won 60 games in 2005/6 and ended up the 4 seed in the West despite having the second best record in the West and third best in the league. So they played 4v5 in round 1 then 4v1 in round 2 of the playoffs when in theory it should be 2v7, 2v3 then 2v1 results going to the higher seed.

The AFL absolutely could go to some kind of conference model but the AFL won't go for it. They aren't splitting up Coll, Ess, Carl, Rich on a permanent basis because the fixtures are too valuable and you would end up with a division of travelling teams and a VFL minus a couple. Do fans want to see a season where you play 8 teams twice and then you might play 3 others during the finals?

 

[benbrown]

Haven’t read it but I presume the winner will play pies in grand final

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The point I was making is that 8 and 10 (or 10 and 8) are essentially mathematical reversals of each other. Just like Eddie's 16-2 system creates just as many imbalances as a 2-16 system.

9 is really the right number (50%) just as 8 was best in a 16 competition. But 9 is impractical.

Therefore, do you round DOWN by one to 8? Or do you round UP to 10?

Obviously, you round up. If 8-10 and 10-8 create just as many imbalances as each other either way, you clearly round up to the higher number.

Sorry mate wasn't cracking you and I understand your point but there is no issue in my opinion and not sure why Eddie or anyone else is trying to fix something that is not broken.

But yes I understand you are just making a point in regards to his proposal.

 

[Billy ray]

top 6 auto qualify for finals
next 4 teams with best percentage is wildcard in concept - they do a knockout game each
looking at ladder right now, top 6 locked in


at the moment next 4 best percentage teams are still 7,8,9,10 but in order of highest to lowest its 9,8,7,10.


so elim finals would right now be 9v10, 8v7

but at end of year, it could be any team from 7-14 who remain in play.
basing it on percentages means less blowouts in season as you want to keep your percentage as good as you can

only concept of wildcard i can think of without divisions setup

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Best of 3 GF provide the biggest income of them all.
Why is it not discussed yet silly finals against the 10th team are being discussed.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Should have a top 12.

12 v 11
10 v 9

Winners play each other. Then the winner takes on 8th spot to see who gets in. Not.

 

[Cmarsh]

Best of 3 GF provide the biggest income of them all.
Why is it not discussed yet silly finals against the 10th team are being discussed.

Its actually quite an obvious way to increase total ratings.

 

[Billy ray]

Its actually quite an obvious way to increase total ratings.

Like nrl state of origin

 

[YeoShuey]

Stupid idea

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Its actually quite an obvious way to increase total ratings.

The best of 3 GF or the silly wildcard v 9th and 10th?

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Eddie McLaughlin

 

[demondavey]

No It's not. But any alternative has no chance as silly locked in blockbusters stuff everything up to make the comp fair.

What would you recommend?

 

[Coolangatta]

Best of 3 GF provide the biggest income of them all.
Why is it not discussed yet silly finals against the 10th team are being discussed.

How would you schedule it?

Cause say something like Collingwood v Geelong, having all 3 at the MCG is just boring. Might as well have one GF and be done with it.

But if it was game 1 Optus, game 2 MCG, game 3 MCG, that’s something different.

Say Lions finish top, Lions v Pies, maybe game 1 Gabba, game 2 MCG, game 3 Gabba again or Adelaide Oval.

Etc.

And what do you do about GF entertainment and all that shit? The Perth GF has shown you need at least six weeks notice to prepare all that crap.

You won’t know what the GF match up is going to be until after the prelims.

I mean, you could lock in game 2 at the MCG months in advance as the possible decider.

Also, would you have all 3 GFs even if it’s decided after 2 games? It’s hard to imagine anyone giving a shit about GF 3 if it’s all sewn up other than the premiers fans.

I don’t know. I prefer the singular GF, to be honest.

 

[demondavey]

Best of 3 GF provide the biggest income of them all.
Why is it not discussed yet silly finals against the 10th team are being discussed.

Dead rubber when you drop the first two.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

How would you schedule it?

Cause say something like Collingwood v Geelong, having all 3 at the MCG is just boring. Might as well have one GF and be done with it.

But if it was game 1 Optus, game 2 MCG, game 3 MCG, that’s something different.

Say Lions finish top, Lions v Pies, maybe game 1 Gabba, game 2 MCG, game 3 Gabba again or Adelaide Oval.

Etc.

And what do you do about GF entertainment and all that shit? The Perth GF has shown you need at least six weeks notice to prepare all that crap.

You won’t know what the GF match up is going to be until after the prelims.

I mean, you could lock in game 2 at the MCG months in advance as the possible decider.

Also, would you have all 3 GFs even if it’s decided after 2 games? It’s hard to imagine anyone giving a shit about GF 3 if it’s all sewn up other than the premiers fans.

I don’t know. I prefer the singular GF, to be honest.

I prefer one gave also but I would prefer a best of 3 GF than giving crap sides finals that have not earnt them .