Fixture for 18 team competition

[dymmot]

It wasnt a farce. I don't like any system with double chances, but Adelaide earned, deserved and should have got that home final.

Yes, Geelong finished higher but Geelong LOST. By losing Geelong's "seed" dropped from 2nd to 5th. That's what happens when you lose - you are penalised. Adelaide's "seed" went from 4th to 3rd. And the 3rd seed hosted the 5th seed. As they should have.

Think of the logic of it again. The trade-off I was talking about. Under the current system, if 2nd loses to 3rd they have a harder match, right? The trade-off (i.e the benefit) for having that harder match is a home final if they lose.

Under the older system 2nd had an easier match against 7th. The trade off for having an easier game is an away final if they lose. Why would Geelong, after falling to 5th seed (and they deserved to drop from 2nd to 5th because that's what happens when you lose - you get penalised) get a home final against athe 3rd seed????? After being given an easier match agaisnt 7th, no less. There is simply no logic in giving them the home final versu Adelaide.

That makes no sense. 3rd is higher than 5th. Adelaide deserved and earnt that home final. Just as 7th-placed (4th seeded after week one) North Melbourne did against 5th placed (6th sedeed after week one) West Coast that same weekend. North Melbourne deserved that home final.



The 1994-1999 system, the top 2 were playing for a week off and home Preliminary Final, but they had an easier match (versus 8th and 7th) to get that. The trade-off for the easier match was an away final should they lose.

The current system has the top 2 also playing for a home Prelim, but they have a HARDER match (versus 4th and 3rd) to get that. The trade-off for that difficulty is a home final should they lose.

What you want - bemusingly - under that older system was the same rewards for losing as the current system (that being a home final) even though they are given an easier match first up! The economy of the maths of the system doesn't support that. That's the bit you don't seem to be getting.



No, they shouldn't have hosted Adelaide. I don't think you're aware of what finals are. There are what we call RAMIFICATIONS if you lose finals. Most of the time that means being eliminated. Lucky teams get to stay in it. If you're not eliminated you at least need to be penalised. After all, aren't the ramifications of losing what makes finals interesting? If nothing bad happens when you lose, what's the point?

Geelong were higher than Adelaide, but after losing to North Melboune Geelong dropped to 5th seed. And deservedly so.

You might argue "Oh but where is the reward after 22 games? One loss and we have an away final"

Jesus Christ, what about if the top team loses the Prelim? or the Grand Final? Then they are out after one loss! No second chance there! Geelong's second chance they received in 1997 was one of the big advantages for finishing 2nd. But they lost to 7th (which was yet another advanatge because they earnt the right to play a low-ranked opponent.) But they lost, become 5th seed, and they had to deal with the ramifications of losing to 7th, by playing away to 3rd seeded Adelaide in week 2. It was totally fair, and if you think it's not you don't understand the system. You might think you understand it, but you actually don't (hopefully you do now)

The moral is: WIN!



Port may have hosted their second final in 2003 (and deservedly so, because when two top 4 teams play each other they retain higher seeding then the two low ranked teams who played an elimination final in week one.

But the point still stands. Port lost, and after winning in week 2, they travelled away to Collingwood who were lower on the ladder than them.

This is totally fair, because Port, upon losing to Sydney in week one became 3rd seed. 8th-placed Essendon became 6th seed after winning in week one and 3rd (Port) hosted Essendon (6th) in week two. Port won and played top-seeded Collingwood.

This is no different whatsoever to Geelong in 1997 except one match was a prelim and one match was a semi-Final. The principle is identical. Geelong (2nd) lost and became 5th seed (just like Port dropped from 1st to 3rd seed in 2003.) Adelaide won in 1997 and went from 4th to 3rd seed.

Under the older system the 3rd highest winner hosted the highest placed loser, which is from 1994-1999 always meant 3rd-seed hosting 5th-seed.

In 1997, Geelong was higher on the ladder than Adelaide but had to travel because they lost earlier in the finals and were seeded lower than Adelaide because of that loss.

In 2003 Port was higher on the ladder than Collingwood and had to travel because they lost earlier in the finals and were seeded lower than Collingwood because of that loss.

You can't support what happened in 2003 and then not support what happened in 1997! The principle of both is identical


Fianls are do-or-die mate. That's what they're about. In 1997 you want Geelong to have every benefit awarded to them AFTER LOSING TO 7TH. Finals about "season-on-the-line" stuff. They are about performing on the day. They are about having ramifications if you lose.

Heaven forbid what you'd think of the current finals system if you lost the 2007 Prelim to Collingwood and were out after one loss without getting a second chance! After all, going by your flawed logic, shouldn't you have deserved a second chance if you lost that 2007 Prelim? Or do you only apply second chances when it's convenient?

The reality is double chances are crap, and the excitement and drama of the Preliminary Finals and Grand Final show this. The top teams don't need, or shouldn't get second chances. They should be fighting for a week off and/or home ground advantage - like in the NFL. You don't need a second chance to reward a good team. There are other way to reward them. You're just culturally used to teams getting second chances, that you don't seem to realise that top teams have been getting knocked out after one-loss in the Prelim and Grand Final many times since '94.

Double chances should have no place in any finals system that concludes with a knockout Prelim and Grand Final as ours does.

1. You are clouded in your judgement to make a logical view by the fact that you support your personal preference above what is a fair and rational system. Yes they have to play a top four side week one but teams have FAR LESS TO LOSE for finishing on the top of the ladder than under the McIntyre system. The current system doesn't allow for anomalies to happen such as 1997 and other years where a weaker team who wins can come up against a lower opponent in week 2 than in week one. That's why the McIntyre system failed because it was too technical, too biased and was seen to be unrewarding to the top teams.

2. The trade off uneder the new system is ALOT fairer than the trade off in the McIntyre system. Yes a team may lose in week one but they are given an equivalent match to under the McIntyre system in week 2. How can you not see this is fairer is beyond me .

3. The rewards are not the same. Look closely and compare what teams in the top 4 get in this system against the old one. Blind Freddy can see there is greater incentive to win during the season in this system. You talk about ramifications, however you fail to acknowledge that the ramifications are also greater in this system than the old system. Under the new system there are both greater ramifications and greater rewards for teams and these are fairly structured based on their ladder position.

4. The top 4 teams should be given every chance to make the preliminary final. If they then lose, bad luck to them. The reason this is different to being knocked out in the semi is that they are given a fair go for their strong performance and have the best possible chance for playing off in a grand final decider or a grand final in itself. Again this has nothing to do with my logic being "flawed" apparentyl in your eyes but rather rewarding teams for being higher up on the ladder. Otherwise what is the point of having a ladder and ranking teams at the end of each season? This is another point you have failed to justify.

5. Finals eventually have to be should be do or die but again why penalise teams for having one bad game such as Port in 2003. A good finals system structures itself to give protection to teams who are successful during the season and this is embraced worldwide in many league competition sports. Why do you think soccer has a 2 leg system, the NBA has series or nearly every local footy comp gives benefits to the top teams? The saying once bitten twice shy applies here very well teams lose their first match and get the chance to do it all again at home the next week.

6. If Geelong had lost to Collingwood in week 3, like St Kilda in 2005 lost to Sydney then bad luck to them. They get an awesome benefit by getting the week off, much klike Sydney did by getting to play a week two final at home against Geelong which is what ultimately got them over the line in that game. If finals are all about winning under your logic, then Collingwood did that. However they had to do it the hard way with a win in extra time to West Coast in the West. This means trhey deservedly earned their spot in the deciding final more than West Coast because West Coast had been given every opportunity to win a final and at home.

7. It has nothing to do with culturally used to anything. At the end of the day you want to give your best four teams the best chance of winning through to the deciding finals, as has already been proven to do so under the new finals system far more than it did under the old finals system. You are failing to acknowledge that there are benefits given to the top teams in the NFL finals system despite you claiming there are none. This makes your logic and desires even more questionable. The NFL is also a 32 team competion not a 16 team competition like the AFL. So despitte your logic that there should be no double chances, you are failing to acknowledge that only 1./4 teams in the competition get into the finals and not 50% of the competition like in the AFL. Basic maths states that you need to give incentives to reward the top tyeams to be successful to give them greater probability to win the title.

8. Please again justify your last comment or is it just personal opinion?

 

[Dan26]

Yes they have to play a top four side week one but teams have FAR LESS TO LOSE for finishing on the top of the ladder than under the McIntyre system.

As I said it's a trade off. By playing a top-four side, the 2nd-placed team had a harder match which is balanced out by keeping home ground advantage in the event they lose.

An easier match against 7th, means the trade-off is losing home ground advantage if they lose.

It's totally fair. I don't like any double chance system but the "specific" example of Adelaide earning a home final in 1997 is absolutely 100% fair.

In a sense both scenarios for the 2nd-placed team under both finals systems are equal in different ways. One has a harder first-up match but the penalties for losing are better. The other has an easier first-up match but the penalties for losing are worse. It still works out to be the same overall advantage for 2nd under either system. You are simply ignoring the benefits of the 1994-1999 system (that being Geelong get an easier first up match) and you are paying attention only to the penalty (losing home ground advantage if they lose.)

The current system doesn't allow for anomalies to happen such as 1997 and other years where a weaker team who wins can come up against a lower opponent in week 2 than in week one. That's why the McIntyre system failed because it was too technical, too biased and was seen to be unrewarding to the top teams.

The 1994-1999 Mcintyre system was shelved because of the events of 1998 and 1999. In those years 5th (in 1998) and 6th (in 1999) lost in the first week, and received a second chance. Those teams then proceeded to beat team ranked above them eliminating those teams after one loss. Very unfair.

After the farce of 1999, the system was changed, and deservedly so. But the events if 1997 had nothing to do with changing the system. The 1997 events were totally fair. Adelaide earnt their home final, Geelong, deservedly were penalised for losing which was correct given the trade-off for having the easier match against 7th and dropped to "5th-seed."

Nothing that happend in 1997 was unfair. Thats why the system was still used in 1998 and 1999. It was changed for the 2000 season because of the events of 1998 and 1999. Not because of anything that happened in 1997.

2. The trade off uneder the new system is ALOT fairer than the trade off in the McIntyre system.

Wrong the trade-off (for the 2nd-placed team) is identically fair under both systems.

One system has a harder match first up, traded-off by keeping home ground advantage if you lose

The other system has an easier match first up traded-off by losing home ground advantage if you lose.

The trade-off under both is identical. It's just "reversed." Mathematically the trade-offs are the same. They are just "opposite" trade-offs. You can't argue that. It is basic maths.

3. The rewards are not the same. Look closely and compare what teams in the top 4 get in this system against the old one. Blind Freddy can see there is greater incentive to win during the season in this system.

Rubbish. The rewards are identical for the 2nd-placed team mathematically (we are still talking about the Geelng example in 1997, right? )

Under either system the 2nd placed team gets a home Preliminary Final for winning, and a double chance for losing. The only difference is one system has an away final if they lose and the current system has a home final if they lose.

But the home final that the 2nd-placed team would currently get if they lose is "Paid for" by having a harder first up match. So, the "rewards" and "penalties" totally balance out. Both systems are equally fair for the 2nd-placed team but in different ways.

You are soley focussing on the negative aspect of losing home ground advantage if 2nd lose to 7th. But you are ignoring the equally balanced out benefit of having the easier match versus 7th. You can't ignore this! There is less chance of losing (in theory anyway) because 2nd gets to play 7th.

So, the benefits and penalites for 2nd totally balance out and are equal under both systems.

Otherwise what is the point of having a ladder and ranking teams at the end of each season? This is another point you have failed to justify.

The point of the ladder is to seed the teams, so that - if the higher teams continue to win - 1st and 2nd will meet in the Grand Final. Ideally the higher teams should be advantaged by virtue of a week off and/or home ground advantage. Like the NFL. Double chances are not needed. You don't get a double cance if you lose the Preliminary Final do you? Nor should you. If you have one bad loss in the Prelim, bad luck (and you hypocritically support that!). Finals are about performing on the day.

I say, if the top team can be knocked out after one bad loss in the Prelim, why isn't the whole finals series knockout?

1

5. Finals eventually have to be should be do or die but again why penalise teams for having one bad game such as Port in 2003.

Because that's what finals are about! Performing on the day. Do or die. Finals are not about getting second chances. They are about performing on the day when it counts. The NFL is total knockout. Lose and you're out. So is the AFL - from the second week onwards. No double chances last year for Geelong and St.Kilda in the Prelim finals. Nor should there be.

If you like double chances so much, why can't your above comment be switched to focus on the current system, like "Why penalise a team for having one bad game like Geelong nearly had in the 2007 Preliminary Final?"

If you support Geelong potentially going out after one loss in 2007 (and you DO support that) then you should logically support a knockout system.

Everyone should support a knockout system. Its the essence of what finals are about.

6. If Geelong had lost to Collingwood in week 3, like St Kilda in 2005 lost to Sydney then bad luck to them.

Just like bad luck to Geelong if they lost to North Melbourne in 1997 (which they did). Geelong recieved an aweosme benefit by playing a team 5 rungs below them. If they lose that, they cop the penalty.

The irony, of course is that Geelong's penalty for losing is not too bad in 1997. They still get to play in the finals after losing! If Geelong lost to Collingwood in 2007 they would have been eliminated, which hypocritially you are fine with!

See the irony? You say you like rewarding teams with a double chance and you complain about Geelong in 1997 EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT A DOUBLE CHANCE. Yet you don't complain at all about Geelong potentially being eliminated after one loss in 2007 with no second chance!

You are flip-flopping like Kevin Rudd!

7. It has nothing to do with culturally used to anything.

Of course it does. If we had used the knockout NFL system for the last 100 years you'd clearly support it, because you'd be used to it. Are you honestly telling me that if we'd used a knockout system, that you alone would be campaigining for a strange system that has a second chance in the first week? Of course you currently support the double chance for cultural reasons. That is totally obvious.

8. Please again justify your last comment or is it just personal opinion?

My last comment is that finals are not about getting double chances - they are about performing on the day. The drama, and "do-or-die" by the top 2 teams on Preliminary Final weekend shold be replicated through the entire finals series.

The NFL show that you can still reward teams without the need for a double chance. In the NFL the top 2 teams in each confernece are rewarded by:

A.) Having a week off (they need to win 3 matches to win the Superbowl, the other 4 teams in their conference need to win 4)

B) Having home ground advantage

C.) Playing the lowest remaining seeded team at all points during the play-offs.

There is plenty of incentive for teams to earn an advantage via their seeding, via a week off and home ground advantage, without resorting to "double chances," which are only money making exercises aimed at creating more finals, and they only appy to the first week anyway!

The "on the day" drama of the Preliminary and Grand Finals is absolutely something the whole finals series should be like.

 

[dymmot]

As I said it's a trade off. By playing a top-four side, the 2nd-placed team had a harder match which is balanced out by keeping home ground advantage in the event they lose.

An easier match against 7th, means the trade-off is losing home ground advantage if they lose.

It's totally fair. I don't like any double chance system but the "specific" example of Adelaide earning a home final in 1997 is absolutely 100% fair.

In a sense both scenarios for the 2nd-placed team under both finals systems are equal in different ways. One has a harder first-up match but the penalties for losing are better. The other has an easier first-up match but the penalties for losing are worse. It still works out to be the same overall advantage for 2nd under either system. You are simply ignoring the benefits of the 1994-1999 system (that being Geelong get an easier first up match) and you are paying attention only to the penalty (losing home ground advantage if they lose.)



The 1994-1999 Mcintyre system was shelved because of the events of 1998 and 1999. In those years 5th (in 1998) and 6th (in 1999) lost in the first week, and received a second chance. Those teams then proceeded to beat team ranked above them eliminating those teams after one loss. Very unfair.

After the farce of 1999, the system was changed, and deservedly so. But the events if 1997 had nothing to do with changing the system. The 1997 events were totally fair. Adelaide earnt their home final, Geelong, deservedly were penalised for losing which was correct given the trade-off for having the easier match against 7th and dropped to "5th-seed."

Nothing that happend in 1997 was unfair. Thats why the system was still used in 1998 and 1999. It was changed for the 2000 season because of the events of 1998 and 1999. Not because of anything that happened in 1997.




Wrong the trade-off (for the 2nd-placed team) is identically fair under both systems.

One system has a harder match first up, traded-off by keeping home ground advantage if you lose

The other system has an easier match first up traded-off by losing home ground advantage if you lose.

The trade-off under both is identical. It's just "reversed." Mathematically the trade-offs are the same. They are just "opposite" trade-offs. You can't argue that. It is basic maths.



Rubbish. The rewards are identical for the 2nd-placed team mathematically (we are still talking about the Geelng example in 1997, right? )

Under either system the 2nd placed team gets a home Preliminary Final for winning, and a double chance for losing. The only difference is one system has an away final if they lose and the current system has a home final if they lose.

But the home final that the 2nd-placed team would currently get if they lose is "Paid for" by having a harder first up match. So, the "rewards" and "penalties" totally balance out. Both systems are equally fair for the 2nd-placed team but in different ways.

You are soley focussing on the negative aspect of losing home ground advantage if 2nd lose to 7th. But you are ignoring the equally balanced out benefit of having the easier match versus 7th. You can't ignore this! There is less chance of losing (in theory anyway) because 2nd gets to play 7th.

So, the benefits and penalites for 2nd totally balance out and are equal under both systems.




The point of the ladder is to seed the teams, so that - if the higher teams continue to win - 1st and 2nd will meet in the Grand Final. Ideally the higher teams should be advantaged by virtue of a week off and/or home ground advantage. Like the NFL. Double chances are not needed. You don't get a double cance if you lose the Preliminary Final do you? Nor should you. If you have one bad loss in the Prelim, bad luck (and you hypocritically support that!). Finals are about performing on the day.

I say, if the top team can be knocked out after one bad loss in the Prelim, why isn't the whole finals series knockout?



Because that's what finals are about! Performing on the day. Do or die. Finals are not about getting second chances. They are about performing on the day when it counts. The NFL is total knockout. Lose and you're out. So is the AFL - from the second week onwards. No double chances last year for Geelong and St.Kilda in the Prelim finals. Nor should there be.

If you like double chances so much, why can't your above comment be switched to focus on the current system, like "Why penalise a team for having one bad game like Geelong nearly had in the 2007 Preliminary Final?"

If you support Geelong potentially going out after one loss in 2007 (and you DO support that) then you should logically support a knockout system.

Everyone should support a knockout system. Its the essence of what finals are about.




Just like bad luck to Geelong if they lost to North Melbourne in 1997 (which they did). Geelong recieved an aweosme benefit by playing a team 5 rungs below them. If they lose that, they cop the penalty.

The irony, of course is that Geelong's penalty for losing is not too bad in 1997. They still get to play in the finals after losing! If Geelong lost to Collingwood in 2007 they would have been eliminated, which hypocritially you are fine with!

See the irony? You say you like rewarding teams with a double chance and you complain about Geelong in 1997 EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT A DOUBLE CHANCE. Yet you don't complain at all about Geelong potentially being eliminated after one loss in 2007 with no second chance!

You are flip-flopping like Kevin Rudd!




Of course it does. If we had used the knockout NFL system for the last 100 years you'd clearly support it, because you'd be used to it. Are you honestly telling me that if we'd used a knockout system, that you alone would be campaigining for a strange system that has a second chance in the first week? Of course you currently support the double chance for cultural reasons. That is totally obvious.



My last comment is that finals are not about getting double chances - they are about performing on the day. The drama, and "do-or-die" by the top 2 teams on Preliminary Final weekend shold be replicated through the entire finals series.

The NFL show that you can still reward teams without the need for a double chance. In the NFL the top 2 teams in each confernece are rewarded by:

A.) Having a week off (they need to win 3 matches to win the Superbowl, the other 4 teams in their conference need to win 4)

B) Having home ground advantage

C.) Playing the lowest remaining seeded team at all points during the play-offs.

There is plenty of incentive for teams to earn an advantage via their seeding, via a week off and home ground advantage, without resorting to "double chances," which are only money making exercises aimed at creating more finals, and they only appy to the first week anyway!

The "on the day" drama of the Preliminary and Grand Finals is absolutely something the whole finals series should be like.

1. It is ironic you tell me I flip flop like Kevin Rudd when you refer to the farce of 1999 that cost your beloved Essendon a premiership. How hypocritical.

2. If finals are money making chances then we sholud go back to a 3 week system for the top 4 or 5 in the competition and only they play off for finasl. This way the result would be fair and wouldn't be influenced by mickey mouse teams who manage to scrape into the finals such as could happen under the McIntire system.

3.The supposedly equal mathematical benefit you state is not fair and again you have failed to justify this. A good example is the tough match Carlton had to play in week 1 of the finals of 1995. Again I suggest you look into this as it was their toughest match of the campaign and further disproves your philosophy/point.

4. As I have said in the above post the benefit is far worse under the McIntyre system than it is in the current system.

5. There was talk of the need to change the system after 1997. The AFL was hesitant to do so and spent much time investigating the matter. The 1998 and 1999 scenarios further validated the need.

6. How can the system be unfair under one scenario but not the other? Please explain, as it sounds like hogwash that contradicts your initial argument that you harped on about. The new finals system is extremely fairer and eliminates the problems you have suggested above as the reason it needs to change.

7. The NFL may be total knockout, however it still provides great advantages to the top team by sitting out. Thus it is not a pure knockout competition as you suggest.

8. Culture has nothing to do with it. The current system is all about performing on the day and rewards teams accoridngly but goes the right way about doing it and not in a farcical way other finals systems are run.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Gawd. This has descended into the convoluted discussion it always threatened to. KISS. Mine. Works.

 

[Bone71]

1. It is ironic you tell me I flip flop like Kevin Rudd when you refer to the farce of 1999 that cost your beloved Essendon a premiership. How hypocritical.

In 1999 the sixth place team lost it's first final (like Adelaide did in 98 from 5th) and survived - the farce dan was referring to was a team outside the top 4 getting a double chance........Adelaide never had a double chance in 1997, Geelong did, after losing to 7th whilst Adelaide defeated 5th. Are you getting it yet?

2. If finals are money making chances then we sholud go back to a 3 week system for the top 4 or 5 in the competition and only they play off for finasl. This way the result would be fair and wouldn't be influenced by mickey mouse teams who manage to scrape into the finals such as could happen under the McIntire system.

McIntyre also created the final 4 and final 5 systems used for most of the VFL history. But yes we should revert back to a final 4 or 5, whats the point of having a final series that is proving it is impossible to make the grand final for half the teams? Never happen though ..... more finals equals more money for the AFL


3.The supposedly equal mathematical benefit you state is not fair and again you have failed to justify this. A good example is the tough match Carlton had to play in week 1 of the finals of 1995. Again I suggest you look into this as it was their toughest match of the campaign and further disproves your philosophy/point.

So? Carlton in 1995 had it's toughest match for the finals in week one against Brisbane who finished 8th? What is your point? are you suggesting that finals should guarantee easier matches for the higher placed sides? well what game would you deem easiest for the 1st placed team in week one? No matter what system you use occasionally a lower placed side is going to beat a higher placed side. I would suggest if Carlton had lost to Brisbane they would've got what they deserved - an away game against Nth Melb

4. As I have said in the above post the benefit is far worse under the McIntyre system than it is in the current system.

Under the current system the games involving the sides finishing 5th-8th are pointless - only twice in 10 years has a side from outside the top 4 managed to make the Preliminary final and none have made the Grand Final. You also have the dubious situation where the Minor Premier has a harder match than the 2nd ranked side (with no double chance safety net) in the third week of the finals if all goes to plan.

5. There was talk of the need to change the system after 1997. The AFL was hesitant to do so and spent much time investigating the matter. The 1998 and 1999 scenarios further validated the need.

Was there? I remeber alot of bitching and moaning from Geelong about how they were robbed left right and centre but that was about it. It was Adelaide and Carlton making the Grand Final in 98 and 99 respectively that bought about the change.

6. How can the system be unfair under one scenario but not the other? Please explain, as it sounds like hogwash that contradicts your initial argument that you harped on about.

97 is very different to 98 and 99. Pretty sure you just don't want to see it.

The new finals system is extremely fairer and eliminates the problems you have suggested above as the reason it needs to change.

Except that for half the teams it is pointless and that it unfairly penalises the 1st ranked team when there are no double chances in that it gets the harder opponent.

7. The NFL may be total knockout, however it still provides great advantages to the top team by sitting out. Thus it is not a pure knockout competition as you suggest.

He suggests all games in the NFL finals are knock out nothing else

8. Culture has nothing to do with it. The current system is all about performing on the day and rewards teams accoridngly but goes the right way about doing it and not in a farcical way other finals systems are run.

Of course culture has an effect. If we were not exposed to the McIntyre final 4 and 5 the idea of double chances in a final 8 would be laughed at by all and sundry. It's not like those systems didn't face heavy scrutiny and considerable opposition when they were first adopted

My own personal belief is that any final system should be weighted to advantage the higher ranked sides but not to the point that it is pointless for the lower rank teams to be there - the current system has proven to do this.

Personally I don't like the final 8 in either of it's forms and would rather go back to the 4 or 5 but this would never happen, i did see a knock out final 9 (i think) in one of these threads i liked a lot though. Will have a look for it when I get a chance

 

[dymmot]

Gawd. This has descended into the convoluted discussion it always threatened to. KISS. Mine. Works.

Post your's again please.

 

[dymmot]

My own personal belief is that any final system should be weighted to advantage the higher ranked sides but not to the point that it is pointless for the lower rank teams to be there - the current system has proven to do this.

Personally I don't like the final 8 in either of it's forms and would rather go back to the 4 or 5 but this would never happen, i did see a knock out final 9 (i think) in one of these threads i liked a lot though. Will have a look for it when I get a chance

Out of interest, why don't you like favouritism being given to the higher teams? Would you be happy if Adelaide finished top though and then got knocked over at home by Port Adelaide who stormed into the finals and then were either eliminated in week one or had to travel to somewhere like Brisbane week two?

I believe the AFL chose its current system on the basis that it was fair to the final 8 but prevents a club like Collingwood in 2007 or Hawthorn this year from having a late run to the 8 and causing damage to teams in week one who finished first or second.

 

[Chiz]

I believe the AFL chose its current system on the basis that it was fair to the final 8 but prevents a club like Collingwood in 2007 or Hawthorn this year from having a late run to the 8 and causing damage to teams in week one who finished first or second.

I wouldn't say 'prevents', it just makes it much harder. That's the price you pay for having an inconsistent season.

 

[Bone71]

Out of interest, why don't you like favouritism being given to the higher teams? Would you be happy if Adelaide finished top though and then got knocked over at home by Port Adelaide who stormed into the finals and then were either eliminated in week one or had to travel to somewhere like Brisbane week two?

I believe the AFL chose its current system on the basis that it was fair to the final 8 but prevents a club like Collingwood in 2007 or Hawthorn this year from having a late run to the 8 and causing damage to teams in week one who finished first or second.

I don't mind it being weighted towards the higher placed teams but I don't see the point of including teams just to make up the numbers which the current AFL final 8 does.

If on the odd occasion the top teams are unable to beat a side 6 or 7 rungs lower than them then so what? They are not good enough when it matters just like if they cant beat them in
Preliminary final week or Grand Final week. Remember unless we go to the EPL style where the Minor Premier is the Premier a season is H&A plus Finals and you need to be good enough over 26 weeks - more so in the last 4.

Hawthorn is a is a good point in reference if you ask me - they are a very good side that has been decimated with injury for a year and a half and now that they are getting everyone back and into form they are starting to look like they could cause some damage, why is that a bad thing? The higher ranked teams might be disadvantaged because they have to play them but then they have already been advantaged by Hawthorn's injuries in the first place.

As for the senario of Port beating Adelaide from eigth in the first week of the finals, I would be furious but not at the finals system but at the team. Unless you invent a system where the higher place teams get to choose who they play there are always going to be times when they are going to play an inform lower placed side. If they are not good enough when it counts so be it.

Do you realise in the 6 years of the McIntyre Final 8 in the AFL 8th beat 1st exactly zero times and twice in the eleven years that the NRL have been using the system?

 

[Bone71]

I wouldn't say 'prevents', it just makes it much harder. That's the price you pay for having an inconsistent season.

1st and 2nd play 3rd and 4th in the 1st week of the finals. Pretty sure that prevents it for happening. He was talking about the first week of the finals.

 

[Chiz]

1st and 2nd play 3rd and 4th in the 1st week of the finals. Pretty sure that prevents it for happening. He was talking about the first week of the finals.

Ah I see. But there's nothing wrong with that. The 5th-8th teams have a chance to win the grand final, they just have to play very consistent football over the four weeks. If the 8th placed team is actually the best team going into the finals (but say started the season poorly due to injuries) then they still have a good chance of winning (it's not like their opponents are given a 5 goal head start), they just won't be rewarded with the little advantages top teams get such as a week off or a home game. I think that's totally fair.

 

[Chiz]

Do you realise in the 6 years of the McIntyre Final 8 in the AFL 8th beat 1st exactly zero times and twice in the eleven years that the NRL have been using the system?

And second rarely lost to 7th (though I think I can remember twice this happening in the AFL). Which is actually what made the system such a joke because the matches between 3 and 6 then merely determined who played home games the following week. Whether the loser of a final is eliminated or gets a second chance should always be independent of the other finals; under the McIntyre system, the 6th team could lose in week 1 and get a second chance (usually happened), whilst the 3rd team could lose and be eliminated (in theory, though this never happened). That was the fundamental flaw in the system. The system was 'fair' within any particular year, but not fair across different years.

As for the NRL, they used to use a similar system to the current AFL final 8, then changed to the McIntyre system. Idiots.

 

[pluga_4]

I have suggested a couple of extra measures that may create additional interest in the super rounds. Firstly, winning a game in the 'super rounds' is worth 6 points rather than 4 (points are carried over from the first 17 rounds). Secondly, the top 8 is determined by the top 4 within groups A and B, with the top 4 determined by the top 2 within each group. Thus, at the conclusion of the super rounds, the qualifying finals will be A1 v B2, B1 v A2, and elimination finals A3 v B4, B3 v A4.

Of course, supporters of the bottom six sides would mostly prefer to see their teams playing the full 22 rounds. An idea here is that after round 17, the bottom six form group C and play each other over the last five rounds (points are not carried over); at the conclusion of the five rounds, the top 2 of the bottom six play off (alongside week 1 of the finals), with the winner earning a priority draft pick (rather than tanking to receive one). After the first draft pick, the ladder at round 17 determines the order of the national draft (i.e. the bottom team at round 17 receives pick 2, second bottom pick 3 and so on). This at least ensures that each of the bottom sides has something to play for (other than pride).

There are some questions that arise under this system, which I have tried to consider and come up with a solution. For example, which team plays a home game in the super rounds? One possible solution is that the home team in a super round game was the away team when the teams met during rounds 1-17; e.g. if St Kilda played Fremantle in Melbourne in round 10, then if they play each other in the super rounds, they would then play at Subiaco.

That's basically it. Questions? Comments? Any feedback is appreciated.

not sure teams would be happy if they only got 8 of the first 17 rounds at home then the LAST 5 games AWAY !!!

 

[Bone71]

Ah I see. But there's nothing wrong with that. The 5th-8th teams have a chance to win the grand final, they just have to play very consistent football over the four weeks. If the 8th placed team is actually the best team going into the finals (but say started the season poorly due to injuries) then they still have a good chance of winning (it's not like their opponents are given a 5 goal head start), they just won't be rewarded with the little advantages top teams get such as a week off or a home game. I think that's totally fair.

Both systems always reward the higher ranked team, one of them just penalises a loss in the first week harsher than the other one but makes it less likely the top 2 teams will lose.

Yes they have a chance to play in the Grand Final. In reality though we have a system that has 8 teams in it only to have extra games so the AFL gets more $ not because we actually want a team outside the top 4 winning the Premiership. Its weighted too heavily in favour of the sides that should win the early finals games anyway if they played the sides 5th-8th.

If the 8th placed team is the best team going into the finals what matter whether they beat 1st in week 1,2,3 or 4.

 

[Bone71]

matches between 3 and 6 then merely determined who played home games the following week

That is why I don't like the McIntyre 8

That was the fundamental flaw in the system. The system was 'fair' within any particular year, but not fair across different years.

The whole AFL isn't fair from season to season so why does this matter? Surely its more important to be fair to the teams in that series not necessarily in other years and provide a realistic chance for all teams competing in the finals to possibly win?

Again I don't like either system, and i would prefer a final 4 or 5, or a pure knockout final 8 (but that only lasts 3 weeks) but i also realise that they are not going to happen.

 

[Chiz]

not sure teams would be happy if they only got 8 of the first 17 rounds at home then the LAST 5 games AWAY !!!

Probability of this occurring = 0.009 (am I right Dan26?)

 

[Chiz]

Probability of this occurring = 0.009 (am I right Dan26?)

And there's about a 10% chance that a team who played only 8 home games would draw 4 away games in the last five rounds