Finals system

[Doss]

Just bring back the top 5

6 - 8 are always just making up the numbers

With the old top 5, every final was a humdinger!

Agree 100%. It was the best system we had.

It'll never happen though.

 

[Matt_TY]

Interestingly, in the past month I have read blogs by both MLS and NCAA gridiron fans advocating for their respective leagues to switch *to* our system. Of course, like any playoffs proposal post on an American sports forum, these posts are immediately swamped with replies talking about how to get around the unevenness of the divisions...


Mutation is the process by which evolution occurs.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

No argument with that.

And if 8 beats 1, 1 still gets a double chance.....but all of a sudden 4 is eliminated because they lost to 5. I cant see whats entirely fair about 4 being knocked out in the finals because of thew results of another game in the same weekend. In fact its a very good reason for 1 or 2 to tank....to knock out their biggest threats!

Plus you conveniently overlook the problems the AFL had with scheduling finals under this system.

Lol. Now I've heard it all. Tanking in finals.

Funnily enough i think Geelong's antics in 1992 and 1993 led to a couple of rule changes in the finals system.

Firstly the 1992 series saw Geelong play the Bulldogs in the Qualifying finals and preliminary final, with wins to the Cats both times, and then losing to the Eagles in both the 2nd Semi and Preliminary final.

THis duplication saw the finals system introduce the 'crossover' rule that prevented two teams playing a second time until the Grand Final.

Then famously in 1993 Geelong finished 7th with a bullet in a most unique and weird season of 20 rounds (itself unique in the AFL after 1970 up to now). It's record of 12-8 and percentage of 111% and the fact it was merely six premiership points shy of the ladder leader saw the AFL bring in a final 8 for 1994. Somewhat fittingly, Richmond finished 9th in 1994 with a good record of 12-10, a number that in recent years would generally be easily getting into the finals.

Don't think Geelong had anything to do with finals system changes. The same finals structure was used in 1993 as it was in 1992, and still allowed for the teams to play each other twice (ie. if Adelaide won the 2nd semi, Carlton would have played Essendon in the prelim after already playing them in the QF, and if they won would have played Adelaide again in the GF).

The system was changed in 1992 after 1991 saw 3v4 and 5v6 in elimination finals. 4th (Saints) was eliminated by 3rd (Cats). League decided to change this to 3v6 and 4v5, so give 3rd and 4th "easier" opponents in elimination finals. This meant that the higher of the elim winners went through to the 2nd semi and was 1 win away from a GF (benefitted both West Coast in 1992, who finished 4th, and Adelaide in 1993, who finished 5th, as both years saw 6 beat 3).

1994 saw the introduction of the final 8, but I believe it was purely to get more finals and thus more revenue. This was 8 out of 15 teams making the finals, remember, until the following season when Fremantle entered and it was a 16 team comp.

The value of winning the semi-final has never been illustrated more clearly than last weeks West Coast-Carlton game. The winner by a kick may end up winning the premiership. The loser is out.

That game illustrated how high the stakes are in knockout finals.

As for Qualifying finals. The stakes are nowhere near as high. Not even remotely close.

Brisbane (2003) Sydney (2005) and West Coast (2006) all lost Qulaifying finals. They all won the flag anyway.

Qualifying finals may be important. But compared to knockout finals, Qualifying finals are not that important.

Brisbane were probably the only side that had a comparatively easy run through their prelim. They had an easy Semi-Final win and then had a very green Swans side at their "non" home ground in ANZ Stadium (or whatever it is called now).

Sydney had seemingly lost their semi-final to Geelong before Nick Davis showed up and stole it, then had to run over the top of the Saints and then had a thriller to win the flag. West Coast had an easy semi win at home, but had to go to Adelaide, kicked only 2 goals in the first half before storming home on the back of their blue-chip midfield against an injury plagued Adelaide.

Still, losing the QFs probably did give both sides an easier run, in terms of matchups. Had either side won their QF in the year they lost it, their path was probably harder, in essence, as Sydney would have been matched against their "bogey side" Adelaide in a prelim, while West Coast would have lost their home-ground advantage to Fremantle, who had beaten them twice that year.

 

[Dan26]

.

For mine, there are too many variables that would just make a mockery of the system if it were knockout. For example, Geelong were 13-0 and Essendon 5-7-1 going into the Round 15 game this year. Yet Essendon won, partly because of how well they played, partly because Geelong didn't play well, and partly because Geelong had a few injured players out (as did Essendon of course, but regardless). Now, if that had been a final under a knockout system, Geelong would have been out because of one freak result.

For example, in 2007 Geelong were 19-4 and Collingwood 15-9 going into the Preliminary Final. Yet Collingwood nearly won, partly because of how well they played, partly because Geelong didn't play well. Now, if that had been a final under a knockout system, Geelong could have been out because of one freak result. Oh wait a minute..... it WAS a final under a knockout system...

Finals are about performing on the day. Teams can go out under the CURRENT SYSTEM with a freak result without getting a second chance.

I will repeat that for those that don't get it or are intellectually challenged: Teams can go out under the CURRENT SYSTEM with a freak result without getting a second chance.

That's the whole point of performing on the day. Make sure you don't have an off day. Perform on the day and win - that's what finals are about.

The very system you are supporting THIS year is knockout except for (2 of the 9 games.)

 

[Matthew2708]

The losers of the Qualifying Finals receive the double chance and play in the semi-finals in week 2.
You don't receive the double chance if you win the Qualifying Final.
That's what the double chance actually means.

 

[Doss]

Dan, you seem to have a lot of trouble accepting anyone can disagree with you. It's a democracy, people have opinions, get over it.

Also- "make sure you don't have an off day"- ridiculous statement. Sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, teams have off days and there is very little they can do about it.

 

[RogerC]

You're doing well guys. You've got Dan using capitals, and bold, and underlining. He may blow a gasket soon.

I remember this argument. I've had the same one with Dan before. I told him I preferred a finals system with the double chance in the first week. He told me I didn't. I repeated that I did, and he told me I didn't but I just didn't know it.

Can't argue with that, can you? He knows me better than I know myself.

Qualifying Finals aren't my favourite finals. They're not my least favourite either. My least favourite are Elimination Finals. I'm not a big fan of Semi-Finals either. They're ok, but I prefer Qualifying Finals. Though I am apparently not allowed to think that way according to Dan.

I got fed up explaining for him how the double chance worked. I note he still seems to think it's supposed to exist right through the finals series, otherwise it's not a double chance. When you get the double-chance, you either get the reward (a week off) for winning, or the consolation (another game) for losing. That's your advantage for finishing in the top four. You're guaranteed at least two matches no matter what happens. I can't see how that's so complicated, but just wait until Dan gets through with it. It'll look like differential calculus.

Anyway, you're all stupid and Dan's a genius. You don't know it yet, that's all. Perhaps you'll never know it. You'll go to your graves completely unaware of the virtue of his flawless logic.

 

[swiftdog]

Here is, I believe the best finals system to be used for the 18 team league.

KNOCKOUT FINAL TEN (winners in bold)

Week One
7v10
8v9

Week Two
1st vs lowest-placed winner from week one. (1st vs 9th)
2nd vs highest-placed winner from week one (2nd vs 7th)
3v6
4v5

Week Three
Highest remaining team versus lowest remaining team (1st vs 6th)
2nd-highest remaining team vs 2nd lowest remaining team. (2nd vs 4th)

Week Four
Grand Final. (1st vs 2nd)


As you can see it's a better system and much fairer on the top team. 1st gets to play at home to either 8th 9th or 10th in week two, and they get the advantage of hosting the lowest remaining seed in the Prelim finals (in the example here, 6th.)

That's much better than the current system, where 1st has to beat 4th, then 3rd to make the Grand Final.

There are essentially 5 sets of advantages:

1.) 1st and 2nd
Guaranteed to play all finals at home until the Grand Final. They have the advantage of hosting a low-seeded team in week 2 who played in week one.

2.) 3rd and 4th
Guaranteed to have a home final in week 2. They don't have the same advantage like 1st and 2nd do, of hosting a team in week 2 who played the week before because their oppoents (5th and 6th) also have a weeks rest.

2.) 5th and 6th
Same advantages as 3rd and 4th except they are away from home in week 2.

2.) 7th and 8th
Home final in first week, but no home finals after that. Need to win 4 finals to win the flag

2.) 9th and 10th
No home finals, need to win 4 finals to win the flag.

Perfect system, really. 1st an 2nd are better off than 3rd and 4th, who are better off than 5th and 6th, who are better off than 7th and 8th, who are better off than 9th and 10th.

No hated double chances. All exciting knockout, and the season is kept alive longer for middle-ranked teams, ensuring less dead-rubbers towards the end of the H&A season.

The more I look at this system the more I like it. In a competition where the fixture is uneven I think more teams are needed in finals. This system feels like a top 6 + 2 wildcard spots to me, and I like that. It seems to be that teams 7 - 10 are in a "logjam" for much of the season and maybe it's an uneven fixture that determines these positions.

I'm not a huge fan of the current system. In most years teams 1 and 4 have the same advantages; half the finals teams have the same advantage. In a competition where 10/18 teams more-or-less have the same home ground it's idiocy to use home ground advantage as the major reward for finishing 1st or 2nd on the ladder.

I think that the majority of the arguing in this thread is aboust what advantages the top two teams should get. a) Potential home ground advantage + Potential double chance vs b) Theoretically easier matchups early on in the finals series + Potential HGA. As home ground advantage can't be guarenteed (in fact, if you finish on top and play most games at Etihad + draw Collingwood who finished 4th you'd be at a disadvantage!) whether you finish top 2 or not then option b is the way to go. I'm not going to argue whether one set of advantages is any better than the other, it's just that option a) can't be guarenteed year in, year out. Hence, b) is the better option. Dan's system I've quoted above seems almost perfect to me.

 

[Dan26]

Also- "make sure you don't have an off day"- ridiculous statement. Sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, teams have off days and there is very little they can do about it.

It's not a ridiculous statement. It is THE most relevant statement that anyone can make in a thread discussing the merits of knockout finals.

What if Collingwood has an off day on Friday? They are out after one loss.

What if Geelong has an off day on Saturday? They are eliminated after one loss.

What's the difference Dos23? What is the difference?

So how do both Collingwood and Geelong avoid being eliminated after one loss this week as you so obviously think they shouldn't be if they lose? They must do what goods teams do, and that is PERFORM ON THE DAY. If you are Collingwood or Geelong this week, they must do what good teams do - win.

And it's no different if they were playing 7th and 8th respectively in knockout finals. Absolutely no different. Don't have an off day. Play well. Be prepared. And get the job done at home versus 7th and 8th. And win.

 

[Dan26]

I got fed up explaining for him how the double chance worked. I note he still seems to think it's supposed to exist right through the finals series, otherwise it's not a double chance. When you get the double-chance, you either get the reward (a week off) for winning, or the consolation (another game) for losing. That's your advantage for finishing in the top four. You're guaranteed at least two matches no matter what happens. I can't see how that's so complicated, but just wait until Dan gets through with it. It'll look like differential calculus.

What you have to remember is that if 1st play 8th the double chance is not required. It can be totally dispensed with.

I accept that IF 1st play 4th and 2nd play 3rd you need a double chance because the top 4 are playing each other. You wouldn't have the top 4 eliminating each other while 5,6,7,8 play each other. That would be stupid.

But the only reason we have the top 4 playing each other is to give us 9 finals instead of 7.

The point is, that if you structure the finals correctly with seeding (i.e 1v8, 2v7) the double chance becomes something that can be done away with.

By playing 8th, the top team has no double chance, but are compensated with having an easier match.

In fact, ALL of the top 4 teams have easier matches, at home versus teams form the bottom half of the top 8. All face elimination, but all are "compensated" with easier games.

It's a basic concept that is used all over the world. Double chances are only needed when the top teams play each other. When a genuine seeding is used, the double chance is not needed.

The 1994-1999 system had the seedings correct, but it should never have allowed losing teams to have a second chance.

If 1st lose to 8th they are out. The easier your opponent, and the more benefits you get with the seeding, the bigger your consequences for losing must be.

But I prefer the knockout final-10, because in addiiton to providing the top teams with home grond advantage and the benefit of always playing the lowest remaining seeded team, the top 6 also get a week off. That's the advantage of 10 teams. A system with 2,4 or 8 won't give that "week off" advantage.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

What you have to remember is that if 1st play 8th the double chance is not required. It can be totally dispensed with..

I think people "remember" that perfectly well. You've repeated it enough.

They just disagree with you that its a good idea.

 

[Dan26]

I think people "remember" that perfectly well. You've repeated it enough.

They just disagree with you that its a good idea.

If 1st play 8th, why in the hell do they need a second chance???????? They're playing 8th FFS.

If 1st play 4th it is different. The top 4 are playing each other. Two of the top HAVE to lose. So you can't eliminate the loser of 1v4. That's the way it mathematically works.

But 1v8 is totally different. They have an easier match so the consequences of losing are greater. I do not accept under any circumstances that 1st deserve a second chance after losing to 8th.

Yes if 1st lose to 8th lose they are out. SO WHAT? So they bloody well should be after losing at home to the worst team. How is that any different to what Collingwood face this week?

The original top 4 back in 1931 had 1v2 with the loser getting a double chance. If 1st played 4th, this benefit of a double chance would not have been needed. 1st would face elimination but would be compensated with an easier match versus 4th in order to earn their Grand Final berth.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You've repeated it enough.

Everybody gets your point.

And everybody disagrees.

Is there a single person apart from yourself proposing a 100% knockout finals series? I dont think I have seen any.

 

[Dan26]

You've repeated it enough.

Everybody gets your point.

And everybody disagrees.

Is there a single person apart frm yourself proposing a 100% knockout fials series?

I'll win you over yet.

Swiftdog agrees.

Most people around the world agree. Here in Australia we are culturally used to accepting the "double chance" as an acceptable method of conducting what should be knockout finals.

Strange isn't it? I mean, the Grand Final is knockout and it is embraced. As is the Preliminary Final. That's why I honestly think it will eventually be accepted through the whole finals. Eventually. People just need to think outside their little square,

If the knockout final-10 comes in, I believe people will fall in love with it within a couple of years. I am THAT confident.

 

[DTRAIN87]

No most people Dan think that our system in the wider world should be used in other league competitions with playoffs/finals.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Strange isn't it? I mean, the Grand Final is knockout and it is embraced. As is the Preliminary Final.

Whats so strange about that?

ALL the finals are embraced. The deeper into September the more they are embraced.

 

[Dan26]

No most people Dan think that our system in the wider world should be used in other league competitions with playoffs/finals.

Stop talking bullshit.

 

[RogerC]

What you have to remember is that if 1st play 8th the double chance is not required. It can be totally dispensed with.....

etc

Yeah, thanks for that Dan. But I wasn't debating with you, I was pointing out the reason why there's no point debating with you.

I accept that IF 1st play 4th and 2nd play 3rd you need a double chance because the top 4 are playing each other. You wouldn't have the top 4 eliminating each other while 5,6,7,8 play each other. That would be stupid.

That's all I need from you. The rest seems to rely on the assumption that nobody knows the difference between knockout and double-chance. I just want you to know that everyone knows the difference, and the general consensus is that they like the double-chance. They certainly seem to like going to the Qualifying Finals, if the attendance figures are anything to go by.

Have you thought about putting up a little stall outside Qualifying Final matches and telling everyone how stupid they are for attending? I'm sure they'd appreciate the information.

 

[Doss]

What if Collingwood has an off day on Friday? They are out after one loss.

Correction, after one win (the QF) and one loss.

What if Geelong has an off day on Saturday? They are eliminated after one loss.

See above.

What's the difference Dos23? What is the difference?

You didn't need to ask twice

The difference is that Geelong and Collingwood have been rewarded for being at the peak of the competition for the entire year with the "insurance" of a second chance should something go wrong. Shock horror, just occasionally in the real world things don't go to plan..

So how do both Collingwood and Geelong avoid being eliminated after one loss this week as you so obviously think they shouldn't be if they lose? They must do what goods teams do, and that is PERFORM ON THE DAY. If you are Collingwood or Geelong this week, they must do what good teams do - win.

Yes, but just occasionally, shit happens. Yes, teams should perform on the day, but I also hate the idea that the games during the season could potentially count so little for a team that has won 20-21 games in the home and away season.

You're basing your argument on a very numerical and dare I say it very one-dimensional interpretation, i.e. if team A finishes higher than team B, then they should beat them, no questions asked, a hundred times out of a hundred. Such a manner of looking at it takes no account of the fact that football is actually a sport played by humans, not robots. Not to mention the countless other permutations like the weather, the bounce of the ball, injuries, the way one particular team matches up against another particular team, recent formline, off field concerns and so on. There are endless nuances and if one looks at our game and can come to no other conclusion than "team A should always beat team B simply because they finished higher", then I dare say that person has no idea what football is really about.


If you're going to have a full knock out finals system, you may as well not have a home and away season at all as I see it.

 

[RogerC]

If you're going to have a full knock out finals system, you may as well not have a home and away season at all as I see it.

Last time I checked Dan was proposing the flag be handed to the minor premier, and that the finals be completely separate to the season proper. He thought the football public would really go for that, and that it wouldn't diminish the importance of the finals at all.

So I think he'd be all for your suggestion, more or less.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Stop talking bullshit.

You can talk chump! The amount of crap you spurted yesterday about the Essendon 2000 side being greatest to play the game was amazing.

Maybe you should read the article here and see why the finals system in the NFL and like the one you propose is flawed. The key point is that the times the team that has had the bye and the supposed advantages has lost is equalt to the number of times they have won.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/17/the-payoff-of-playoffs/

Funny that considering your finals team aims to screw the better teams in the season over at the first point and thus give them no advantage for doing well.

 

[Doss]

Last time I checked Dan was proposing the flag be handed to the minor premier, and that the finals be completely separate to the season proper. He thought the football public would really go for that, and that it wouldn't diminish the importance of the finals at all.

So I think he'd be all for your suggestion, more or less.

And then there's the real world...

Wonder if that gasket has blown yet? Must be getting mighty close..

 

[demondavey]

Here is, I believe the best finals system to be used for the 18 team league.

KNOCKOUT FINAL TEN (winners in bold)

Week One
7v10
8v9

Week Two
1st vs lowest-placed winner from week one. (1st vs 9th)
2nd vs highest-placed winner from week one (2nd vs 7th)
3v6
4v5

Week Three
Highest remaining team versus lowest remaining team (1st vs 6th)
2nd-highest remaining team vs 2nd lowest remaining team. (2nd vs 4th)

Week Four
Grand Final. (1st vs 2nd)


As you can see it's a better system and much fairer on the top team. 1st gets to play at home to either 8th 9th or 10th in week two, and they get the advantage of hosting the lowest remaining seed in the Prelim finals (in the example here, 6th.)

That's much better than the current system, where 1st has to beat 4th, then 3rd to make the Grand Final.

There are essentially 5 sets of advantages:

1.) 1st and 2nd
Guaranteed to play all finals at home until the Grand Final. They have the advantage of hosting a low-seeded team in week 2 who played in week one.

2.) 3rd and 4th
Guaranteed to have a home final in week 2. They don't have the same advantage like 1st and 2nd do, of hosting a team in week 2 who played the week before because their oppoents (5th and 6th) also have a weeks rest.

2.) 5th and 6th
Same advantages as 3rd and 4th except they are away from home in week 2.

2.) 7th and 8th
Home final in first week, but no home finals after that. Need to win 4 finals to win the flag

2.) 9th and 10th
No home finals, need to win 4 finals to win the flag.

Perfect system, really. 1st an 2nd are better off than 3rd and 4th, who are better off than 5th and 6th, who are better off than 7th and 8th, who are better off than 9th and 10th.

No hated double chances. All exciting knockout, and the season is kept alive longer for middle-ranked teams, ensuring less dead-rubbers towards the end of the H&A season.

Brilliant, perfect idea. Love the top 10 with 18 sides. Hopefully it changes, and yes, elimination is far better with no double chances. It's finals after all, the best teams IN THE FINALS should get through, not the H/A.

I just did a bit of a mock example and came up with this;

North
Crows
Demons
Eagles
Swans
Tigers
Bulldogs
Collingwood
Gold Coast
Fremantle

Week 1

Bulldogs (7) vs. Fremantle (10) at MCG - Bulldogs 44
Collingwood (8) vs. Gold Coast at MCG - Collingwood 38

Week 2

North (1) vs. Pies (8) at MCG - Pies by 3
Crows (2) vs. Dogs (7) at AAMI - Crows by 68
Demons (3) vs. Tigers (6) at MCG - Tigers by 16
Eagles (4) vs. Swans (5) at PS - Eagles by 15

Week 3

Crows (2) vs. Pies (8) at AAMI - Crows by 11
Eagles (4) vs. Tigers (6) at PS - Eagles by 88

Week 4

Crows (2) vs. Eagles (4) at MCG - Crows by 48

I like this system, potential is great.

 

[Dan26]

Maybe you should read the article here and see why the finals system in the NFL and like the one you propose is flawed. The key point is that the times the team that has had the bye and the supposed advantages has lost is equalt to the number of times they have won.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/17/the-payoff-of-playoffs/

Funny that considering your finals team aims to screw the better teams in the season over at the first point and thus give them no advantage for doing well.

This is a major embarrassment for you.

In that article, it states that the NFL used a knockout final-10 from 1978-1989. The top 6 having a week off. EXACTLY THE SAME SYSTEM I PROPOSE.

It then states that since moving to a 12 team play-off system, some of the results appear to have become more random. Now with a 16-match schedule, with 32 teams you are naturally going to have more random results, because the fixturing is inherantly unfair, given that there are 17 teams out of the other 31 who you don't even play (you play 3 teams twice, 10 teams once and 17 teams not at all).

But all that aside, the article states that the knockout final-10 used until 1989 was fine.

 

[demondavey]

Cant see whats wrong with the current system. Certainly cant see why 1 should be forced to play 2 in the first round of the finals. Doesnt make any sense.

Wouldnt mind going back to the old McIntyre system (1v8, 2v7 etc etc) but that had a few fundamental flaws.....

1. The possibility that teams finishing 3rd and 4th can get eliminated in week 1.
2. For teams 3 to be eliminated in week 1 they not only have lose but have results in other games they are not involved in, go against them.
3. Scheduling games under this scheme is diabolically difficult because you have to play games in a certain order to avoid dead rubbers.
4. Therefore scheduling the next weeks games and avoiding 5 day breaks is also problematic.

The MAIN reason the old McIntyure system was abolished was because of these practical issues.

What is wrong with that? It puts more pressure on them to win but they would only get eliminated if 1 and 2 also lose, which is unlikely really.

It just gives top 4 teams more of an incentive to win! You win and your fine, and your through to the next round with a home final? More incentive means more pressure, and sometimes that is better because teams outside top 4 may match up better on their opponent, hence creating a really tight contest.

I agree about the scheduling, but surely they REALLY should not be the issue. It just creates so much more chance and opportunity for non top 4 sides. The top 4 sides don't deserve anything come finals! The finals should be cut throat and if the top 4 sides can't win then bad luck! Look at Adelaide in 98? Prob the best example of a side fighting against the odds to come out and win under the hardest circumstances, by FAR the most deserving premier that year.