Fixture for 18 team competition

[BOPPER]

Or this....

2 conferences of 9

Play everyone in your conference twice except for one team you only play once. Play all teams in other conference once (24 games)

Top 4 from each conference play finals together or
top 8 teams with most wins/best percentage over the 2 conferences play finals or
seperate conference finals with winners of each conference meeting in the grand final.

Bottom 10 clubs get lottery percentage given to them based on amount of wins/percentage and then lottery conducted to determine draft order whilst finalist teams join draft as per current system (order of finals elimination)

5 vic clubs and 4 interstate make up each conference eg
Conference 1: Ade, Carl, Coll, Ess, GWS, Port, Rich, Syd, WB
Conference 2: Bris, Freo, Gee, GC, Haw, Melb, Nth, StK, WCE

Alternate conference each year so that no 2 years are the same although keeping state rivalries together as well as Coll, Ess and Carl so they play twice as is current way.

Possible Conference v Conference representative game (mid season) like NBA east v west.

Thoughts????

 

[raskolnikov]

Anything's got to be better than the crap fixture atm. Out of 13 games Essendon have had 9 against teams in the top 8 and only 4 against teams outside the top 8. It's a joke.

 

[Chiz]

The OP's idea has merit but 12th and 13th could be separated only by percentage, which could be influenced by who you played where.

Currently, 8th and 9th can be separated by percentage, or 4th and 5th; creates a big difference, but that's just the game.

The danger with playing for a priority pick (which should be done away with altogether) is the incentive for a team knowing it has no chance of the flag to ensure it is in the bottom six and 'win' that pick. That could still happen if they just played off for pick one. You can imagine Brett Ratten or Dean Bailey, with their team sitting 10th, having the devil on their shoulder whispering, "go on, tank it, another number one pick in the offing". (Sorry, couldn't resist that dig.)

As for teams tanking so that they finish bottom six, remember they still have to win the bottom six division before they get a priority pick (and points don't carry over), so it's far from guaranteed. And even finishing 12th teams will still have a good chance of scraping into the 8, if they can win 3-4 of their last 5 games; coaches will need to weigh up the benefits of playing in big games and potential finals experience versus the chance of a priority pick. I think the uncertainty in getting the priority pick will favour the former.

 

[Chiz]

Or this....
5 vic clubs and 4 interstate make up each conference eg
Conference 1: Ade, Carl, Coll, Ess, GWS, Port, Rich, Syd, WB
Conference 2: Bris, Freo, Gee, GC, Haw, Melb, Nth, StK, WCE
Thoughts????

I like this idea better than a Victorian and non-Victorian conference. I would also base it on last year's ladder position so that it has a roughly even spread; you would take last year's ladder and divide it into a Victorian and a non-Victorian ladder, and divide each into two 'equal' groups. If it was random you could end up with most of the better teams in one conference.

 

[Chiz]

Pick 17 would be the most fair.

Is that incentive enough though?

What about pick 7 - the priority pick is after the bottom six take their first pick. Or even pick 11, such that all the non-finalists get a pick first. It would be enough to make the games worth something, though pick 1 would definitely create the most interest. I'm not opposed to this; currently bottom sides tend to spend a few years at the bottom (the effect of high draft picks takes a few years), and often one team has a few number one picks in their side (e.g. Carlton, St Kilda, Melbourne) - I'd much rather see the number one pick shared around between different clubs as a reward for something, and not just handed out to losing teams.

 

[richoatthedisco]

The Vic team in the National Conference should be the Vic Premier from the previous season... this year being Geelong.

Still, I don't see something like that happening. National Conference teams travelling all over the country while Vic teams just hang out in Melbourne most of the time.

That's what happens now mate. Currently non-Vic sides travel 10 times a year, Vic teams 4-6. My way it's non-Vics 11, Vics 5.

Or this....

2 conferences of 9

Play everyone in your conference twice except for one team you only play once. Play all teams in other conference once (24 games)

What the hell is the point of that?

Top 4 from each conference play finals together or
top 8 teams with most wins/best percentage over the 2 conferences play finals or
seperate conference finals with winners of each conference meeting in the grand final.

Bottom 10 clubs get lottery percentage given to them based on amount of wins/percentage and then lottery conducted to determine draft order whilst finalist teams join draft as per current system (order of finals elimination)

You're complicating things way too much.

5 vic clubs and 4 interstate make up each conference eg
Conference 1: Ade, Carl, Coll, Ess, GWS, Port, Rich, Syd, WB
Conference 2: Bris, Freo, Gee, GC, Haw, Melb, Nth, StK, WCE

Alternate conference each year so that no 2 years are the same although keeping state rivalries together as well as Coll, Ess and Carl so they play twice as is current way.

You're immediately compromising the system.

Anything's got to be better than the crap fixture atm. It's a joke.

Agreed.

Currently, 8th and 9th can be separated by percentage, or 4th and 5th; creates a big difference, but that's just the game.

Fair point, but I think we all agree the current system is flawed. Why replace it with something equally flawed?

As for teams tanking so that they finish bottom six, remember they still have to win the bottom six division before they get a priority pick (and points don't carry over), so it's far from guaranteed.

You'd reckon Carlton would have fancied themselves against Melbourne, Richmond, Freo, North and Sydney last year.

And even finishing 12th teams will still have a good chance of scraping into the 8, if they can win 3-4 of their last 5 games; coaches will need to weigh up the benefits of playing in big games and potential finals experience versus the chance of a priority pick. I think the uncertainty in getting the priority pick will favour the former.

Probably right. Should get rid of the priority pick all the same. The incentive of playing for one at the end of the first round has merit.

I like this idea better than a Victorian and non-Victorian conference. I would also base it on last year's ladder position so that it has a roughly even spread; you would take last year's ladder and divide it into a Victorian and a non-Victorian ladder, and divide each into two 'equal' groups. If it was random you could end up with most of the better teams in one conference.

Which group does the extra Vic team go in, or would you have five Vic and four non-Vic in each? Based on last year's ladder, you'd have:

Tom Wills League
Geelong
Western Bulldogs
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Sydney

E.J. Whitten League
St Kilda
Collingwood
Essendon
North Melbourne
Melbourne
Brisbane
West Coast
Fremantle

which would then be manipulated and thus compromised to ensure derbies and blockbusters are played twice every season. My way it happens without compromise. And my way it's consistent from year to year and builds a tradition - really builds on tradition - both within Victoria and in a Vics v the Rest sense. The VFL and NFL championships would be valued prizes. The above system chops and changes every year.

 

[Chiz]

You'd reckon Carlton would have fancied themselves against Melbourne, Richmond, Freo, North and Sydney last year.

Sydney would've been the only challenge as they were on the rise, but consider that Carlton finished 7th last year; we're talking about a team on the fringe of the bottom six - I doubt that Carlton would've sacrificed finals for a chance at a priority pick. The only way we could see whether tanking occurs is to implement the system and see what happens.

Which group does the extra Vic team go in?

Confused. 10 Victorian teams = 5 in each conference. 8 interstate teams = 4 in each conference.
But the conference idea is a joke anyway. Much better (and fairer) to have a restructured draw after round 17

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Or this....

2 conferences of 9

Play everyone in your conference twice except for one team you only play once. Play all teams in other conference once (24 games)

Top 4 from each conference play finals together or
top 8 teams with most wins/best percentage over the 2 conferences play finals or
seperate conference finals with winners of each conference meeting in the grand final.

Bottom 10 clubs get lottery percentage given to them based on amount of wins/percentage and then lottery conducted to determine draft order whilst finalist teams join draft as per current system (order of finals elimination)

5 vic clubs and 4 interstate make up each conference eg
Conference 1: Ade, Carl, Coll, Ess, GWS, Port, Rich, Syd, WB
Conference 2: Bris, Freo, Gee, GC, Haw, Melb, Nth, StK, WCE

Alternate conference each year so that no 2 years are the same although keeping state rivalries together as well as Coll, Ess and Carl so they play twice as is current way.

Possible Conference v Conference representative game (mid season) like NBA east v west.

Thoughts????

If the conferences are different every year, all you really are suggesting is a rolling draw so over time every team averages out to play every other team the same number of times. It cant be a conference system if the conferences vary from year to year - and we dont want a conference system where they dont vary.

Its the simplest solution - a rolling draw. There are 22 (or whatever) rounds, and whoever you didnt play twice this year, you will play twice next year, until it all averages out more or less over time.

Rolling draw. Simple. No conferences, no confusion.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

those who like the idea of a re-structured draw after round 17, what happens if the clubs in the bottom 6 have only played 7 home games each? that would mean 5 home games each normally in the last 7 weeks.

It could not be done, which would mean that the AFL would effectively be ruining a club membership.


It is impossible in any sport to have home and away games alternating each week. Even in the NFL they have clubs playing back-to-back home games.

 

[richoatthedisco]

My way is the only fair way. People need to get over their aversion to 'conferences'. All it really means is a fair draw for everyone. Then the top four teams from each group make up the final eight. Simple, elegant, fair.

 

[dymmot]

A 5 week Final 9 would have....

Week 1
1st - Bye
First Primary Final - 2 v 7
Second Primary Final - 3 v 6
Third Primary Final - 4 v 5
Wild Card Playoff - 8 v 9

Winners of the Primaries join 1st in the Qualifying Finals in Week 2.
Losers of the Primaries join WCP Winner in the Elimination Finals in Week 2.

From Week 2, its the current Final 8, except that the crossover happens during the Semi Finals in Week 3. One repeat final from Week 1 is allowed in Week 5 for the prelim, but another crossover happens to avoid two repeat finals in the prelims.

FINAL 9

WEEK 1

FIRST PRIMARY FINAL
2ND V 7TH

SECOND PRIMARY FINAL
3RD V 6TH

THIRD PRIMARY FINAL
4TH V 5TH

WILD CARD PLAYOFF
8TH V 9TH

WEEK 2

FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL
1ST V WINNER OF THIRD PRIMARY FINAL

SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL (HIGHER SEEDED TEAM HAS HOME GROUND ADVANTAGE)
WINNER OF FIRST PRIMARY FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND PRIMARY FINAL

FIRST ELIMINATION FINAL (HIGHER SEEDED TEAM HAS HOME GROUND ADVANTAGE)
LOSER OF FIRST PRIMARY FINAL V LOSER OF SECOND PRIMARY FINAL

SECOND ELIMINATION FINAL
LOSER OF THIRD PRIMARY FINAL V WINNER OF WILD CARD PLAYOFF

WEEK 3

FIRST SEMI FINAL
LOSER OF FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF FIRST ELIMINATION FINAL

SECOND SEMI FINAL
LOSER OF SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND ELIMINATION FINAL

WEEK 4

FIRST PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND SEMI FINAL

SECOND PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF FIRST SEMI FINAL

However, if there are repeat match-ups from Week 1 and switching Semi Final
Winners does not create repeat match-ups from Week 2, then a switch is performed.

FIRST PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF FIRST SEMI FINAL

SECOND PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND SEMI FINAL

WEEK 5

GRAND FINAL
WINNER OF FIRST PRELIMINARY FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND PRELIMINARY FINAL

The systejmnm you propose was the exact reason the AFL eradicated tyhe old McIntyre final 8 from the league. 5th got a good if not better advantage than 4, the system rewarded teams going into the finals with good form, losers in week one would have to travel away regardless.

A key reason systems such as these were eliminated was the farce of Geelong in 1997.

Or this....

2 conferences of 9

Play everyone in your conference twice except for one team you only play once. Play all teams in other conference once (24 games)

Top 4 from each conference play finals together or
top 8 teams with most wins/best percentage over the 2 conferences play finals or
seperate conference finals with winners of each conference meeting in the grand final.

Bottom 10 clubs get lottery percentage given to them based on amount of wins/percentage and then lottery conducted to determine draft order whilst finalist teams join draft as per current system (order of finals elimination)

5 vic clubs and 4 interstate make up each conference eg
Conference 1: Ade, Carl, Coll, Ess, GWS, Port, Rich, Syd, WB
Conference 2: Bris, Freo, Gee, GC, Haw, Melb, Nth, StK, WCE

Alternate conference each year so that no 2 years are the same although keeping state rivalries together as well as Coll, Ess and Carl so they play twice as is current way.

Possible Conference v Conference representative game (mid season) like NBA east v west.

Thoughts????

Confrences are biased andf impractical.

Anything's got to be better than the crap fixture atm. Out of 13 games Essendon have had 9 against teams in the top 8 and only 4 against teams outside the top 8. It's a joke.

But then this can work in the favour of Essendon as well when sides such as Carlton, Collingwood, Geelong etc lay Essendon when they are in form. This is a risk you clubs have to take with being a big 4 club.

My way is the only fair way. People need to get over their aversion to 'conferences'. All it really means is a fair draw for everyone. Then the top four teams from each group make up the final eight. Simple, elegant, fair.

Hate to break it to you Buddy, but confrences penalise teams unfairly in multiple ways and are a criticsm of sports such as the NBA etc.

Take this assd an exam,ple, in the SEABL (the highest level basketball leaguer below NBL) a team ended up winning the championship in an easy way (much like Adelaide 1998 and 1997) despite finishing 4th in a top 4 confrence with a barely over 50% win rec ord. Compared to the other conference where the 4th teams record who won the championship, was equal to the first teams record in the other conference.

This means teams who despite being better across the season, missed ouyt on the chance to win the championship.

This is why conference systems no matter how attractive will always fail.

 

[Dan26]

This is why conference systems no matter how attractive will always fail.

I totally disagree.

As soon as any sporting league reaches a number of teams, that makes it imposible to play everyone twice, a division system must be used. The AFL reached this point in 1987, and divisions should have been brought in for that 1987 season and used ever since.

They use divisions in the USA because the major leagues have more than 30 teams, making it impossible to play everybody twice. Therefore they are grouped, so that the teams within each division have the same fixture as each other. Teams are fighting to be division champions with several other teams, all of whom have the same fixture.

In the EPL, with 20 teams, they don't need divisions. Why? Because they all play each other twice over 38 games. If they had, say 40 teams in the top tier instead of 20, they would certainly use divisions. Look at the World Cup. You can't play all 31 opponents home and away can you? So, they group them and they make sure that everyone in a group has the same fixture as everyone else, and they are all fighting for the same thing - to be group champions.

The only reason it becomes unfair is if the divisions are very small (such as the NFL and in the World Cup where each division is 4 teams out of 32) meaning there is a high mathematical probability that one division could all have "sub-par" teams in it.

For example if you rank all 32 NFL (and Soccer World Cup) teams from best to worst from 1 to 32, what are the mathematical probabilites that one NFL division (or World Cup division) of four teams all happen to be in the "worst half" of the 32 teams (i.e teams 17-32). The chance is 5.05% So about 1 in 20.

This means, with 8 divisions every year in the NFL, once every 2.5 years, there will be a division where every team is in the bottom half ability-wise.

Now, if the AFL institute 3 divisions of six, it becomes much fairer, because each division makes up 33.3% of the league instead of only 12.5% like the NFL and the World Cup. What is the probability that one division of six totally comprises teams in the lower half of talent (i.e teams 10-18)

The probability is 0.45%. Yes, that is less than half of one percent. Or 1 in 223. So, there is next to no chance that there will ever be a division that totally comprises sub-par teams. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

If you have three divisions of six in the AFL, where everyone in each group has the same fixture and the rewards for winning each group are the same, then that is as fair as we can realistically get.

I like a knockout final-10, whereby the three division winners are seeded 1,2,3, and those teams all have a week off and home ground advantage. All non-division winners are seeded from 4-10 by win-loss record. The ONLY other team that gets home ground advantage for their first match is the 4th seed, which is the best team that doesn't win their division, which is "insurance" for if the best two teams both happen to be in the same division.

Final 10
First week
7v10 - 1st Elimination Final
8v9 - 2nd Elimination Final

Second Week
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest seeded eliminational Final winner
2nd Semi-Final: 2nd vs highest seeded Elimination Final winner
3rd Semi-Final: 3rd vs 6th
4th Semi-Final: 4th vs 5th

Third Week
*1st Prelim Final: Highest remaining seed vs lowest remaining seed
*2nd Prelim Final: Second highest remaining seed vs third highest remaining seed.

Fourth Week
Grand Final.

* In the event a lower seed has a better win-loss record than a higher seed, by virtue of not winning their division and playing a division winner with a worse win-los record, the lower seed hosts the game. Much like the NBA.

 

[Dan26]

A key reason systems such as these were eliminated was the farce of Geelong in 1997.

There was no "farce of Geelong" in 1997.

Geelong were not hard done by at all. That is a myth.

I can understand how some would think the 1998 and 1999 scenarios ended up being farcical, with the 5th-placed team in 1998 losing and getting a second chance (and eliminating the 3rd-placed and 2nd placed teams in the next two weeks both of who went out with one loss).... and in 1999 where the 6th-placed team lost in the first week, then they eliminated the 5th and 1st placed teams in the next two weeks, both of whom went out after one loss.

... but 1997? Geelong were NOT hard done by. That's crap, and it shows a lack of understanding of the finals system.

 

[dymmot]

There was no "farce of Geelong" in 1997.

Geelong were not hard done by at all. That is a myth.

I can understand how some would think the 1998 and 1999 scenarios ended up being farcical, with the 5th-placed team in 1998 losing and getting a second chance (and eliminating the 3rd-placed and 2nd placed teams in the next two weeks both of who went out with one loss).... and in 1999 where the 6th-placed team lost in the first week, then they eliminated the 5th and 1st placed teams in the next two weeks, both of whom went out after one loss.

... but 1997? Geelong were NOT hard done by. That's crap, and it shows a lack of understanding of the finals system.

Geelong had to go to Adelaide to play week 2 of the finals series when Adelaide were 8-3 at home for the season and had only lost to 2 sides not from South Australia at FP for the year.

Despite finishing second and on percentage, Geelong gets severely punished by losing their benefit from their good season by being forced to go play away in week 2 and 3 should they suffer an upset loss which they did. The current system eliminates these failures from happening and that is why it was preferred and chosen over the system you are defending.

If the side who finishes 4th beats the 1st side in week one away good luck to them. There is no benefit or likelihood of the AFL reverting back to some of the beloved finals systems of old back in the 1990s that still come under immense criticism today in the NRL for the very reasons I mentioned above. Melbourne's loss to the Warriors in 08 was a shock to all and as a result they got a home final (where they wom with a similar record to Adelaide) giving them a berth in the grand final decider. Not to mention last year where there is still criticisms over the fact that St George finished top and were out in straight sets under the same system that was popularly axed by the AFL.

If I don't understand the system then please explain to me how I don't. Also can you justify to me how that scenario shows the system is fair?

Why can't people understand that the AFL will not go back to a system or one that resembles it that was so unpopular that it was hailed with praise when it was axed?

 

[Dan26]

Geelong had to go to Adelaide to play week 2 of the finals series when Adelaide were 8-3 at home for the season and had only lost to 2 sides not from South Australia at FP for the year.

Despite finishing second and on percentage, Geelong gets severely punished by losing their benefit from their good season by being forced to go play away in week 2 and 3 should they suffer an upset loss which they did.

The upset loss means they lose - DESERVEDLY - home ground advantage.

I'll explain this in a roundabut way so stick with me. Please stick with me and read this because I am 100% right on this.

The double chance applies in the current system to the top four. 1st play 4th, right? One of them has to lose, so it would be unfair to eliminate the loser while the winner of 5th and 8th continues on, obviously. The loser of 1v4 retains home ground advantage, but under the 1994-1999 system, if a top-4 team lost they lose home ground advantage. Why? Why does 2nd from 1994-1999 lose home ground advantage for week 2 if they lose, while 2nd from 2000-2010 retains home ground advantage for week 2 if they lose?

I'll explain below.

Before I get to it, in a system where 1 plays 8 and 2 plays 7, it really should be total elimination.

Think about the logic:

When 1st play 4th and 2nd plays 3rd, the top 2 have tough matches, right? The trade-off for those tough matches is that they get a second chance (and retain home ground advantage for week two) if they lose. Fair enough.

But in the 1994-1999 final-8, 1st and 2nd got to play 8th and 7th respectively. They have an EASIER match. The trade-off for that should be that they face elimination if they lose (all finals should be elimination, really anyway. Double chances are not what finals are about)

Geelong, in 1997 had, in theory, an EASIER match agaisnt 7th. They lost. Now, I reckon they should be eliminated. At the very least they should lose home ground advantage for losing after having an "easier" match, as opposed to 2nd having a harder match versus 3rd under the current system.

The huge advantage Geelong received was that in addition to having an "easier" (in theory) match against 7th they were ALSO allowed a second chance if they lost!!!!! Compare that to the current second placed team who gets a second chance if they lose, but they have to play 3rd.

You can't expect to lose to 7th and also retain home ground advantage! Finals are about "do or die." Geelong still got a second chance in 1997 after losing to 7th and that is a huge advantage in itself.

Also, the fact they travelled to Adelaide was fair. The 4 winners from week one are seeded 1,2,3,4. The four losers (of which Geelong was the highest-placed) were seeded 5,6,7,8.

The winners are REWARDED (as winners should be) by being higher seeded. 3rd seeded Adelaide hosted 5th seeded Geelong. 5th does NOT deserve to host 3rd no matter how much you say they do.

But if it was under the current final-8, and 2nd lost to 3rd, 2nd WOULD get home ground advantage versus the winner of 6v7, because they retain the higher seed.

If you play a lower opponent (like losing to 7th) the trade-off for that easier match is a bigger penalty should you lose, which you did.

There was nothing unfair about St.George last year. They lost to 8th and lost home ground advanatge. If they played 4th like the AFL system, the trade-off or the harder match would be a home final IF they lost (which they did)

But instead, they have the easier match versus 8th but a bigger penalty if they lose. Why should they ALSO retain home ground advantage as well as getting a second chance after losing to 8th? Isn't getting a second chance enough after they've already been seeded to play the easiest opponent?

If I had my way, St.George would have been eliminated after losing to 8th.

 

[dymmot]

The upset loss means they lose - DESERVEDLY - home ground advantage.

I'll explain this in a roundabut way so stick with me. Please stick with me and read this because I am 100% right on this.

The double chance applies in the current system to the top four. 1st play 4th, right? One of them has to lose, so it would be unfair to eliminate the loser while the winner of 5th and 8th continues on, obviously. The loser of 1v4 retains home ground advantage, but under the 1994-1999 system, if a top-4 team lost they lose home ground advantage. Why? Why does 2nd from 1994-1999 lose home ground advantage for week 2 if they lose, while 2nd from 2000-2010 retains home ground advantage for week 2 if they lose?

I'll explain below.

Before I get to it, in a system where 1 plays 8 and 2 plays 7, it really should be total elimination.

Think about the logic:

When 1st play 4th and 2nd plays 3rd, the top 2 have tough matches, right? The trade-off for those tough matches is that they get a second chance (and retain home ground advantage for week two) if they lose. Fair enough.

But in the 1994-1999 final-8, 1st and 2nd got to play 8th and 7th respectively. They have an EASIER match. The trade-off for that should be that they face elimination if they lose (all finals should be elimination, really anyway. Double chances are not what finals are about)

Geelong, in 1997 had, in theory, an EASIER match agaisnt 7th. They lost. Now, I reckon they should be eliminated. At the very least they should lose home ground advantage for losing after having an "easier" match, as opposed to 2nd having a harder match versus 3rd under the current system.

The huge advantage Geelong received was that in addition to having an "easier" (in theory) match against 7th they were ALSO allowed a second chance if they lost!!!!! Compare that to the current second placed team who gets a second chance if they lose, but they have to play 3rd.

You can't expect to lose to 7th and also retain home ground advantage! Finals are about "do or die." Geelong still got a second chance in 1997 after losing to 7th and that is a huge advantage in itself.

Also, the fact they travelled to Adelaide was fair. The 4 winners from week one are seeded 1,2,3,4. The four losers (of which Geelong was the highest-placed) were seeded 5,6,7,8.

The winners are REWARDED (as winners should be) by being higher seeded. 3rd seeded Adelaide hosted 5th seeded Geelong. 5th does NOT deserve to host 3rd no matter how much you say they do.

But if it was under the current final-8, and 2nd lost to 3rd, 2nd WOULD get home ground advantage versus the winner of 6v7, because they retain the higher seed.

If you play a lower opponent (like losing to 7th) the trade-off for that easier match is a bigger penalty should you lose, which you did.

There was notign unfair about St.George last year. They lost to 8th and lost home ground advanatge. If they played 4th like the AFL system, the trade-off or the harder match would be a home final KF they lost.

But instead, they have the easier match versus 8th but a bigger penalty if they lose. Why should they ALSO retain home ground advantage as well as getting a secnd chance after losing to 8th? Isn't getting a second chance enough after they've already been seeded to play the easiest opponent?

If I had my way, St.George would have been eliminated after losing to 8th.

So what you aRE ULTIMATELY SAYING IS A TEAM SHOULD FACE SEVERE punishment for losing 1 game due to a bad run or injuries, despite finishing 20-2 on the ladder ?

This means teams will most likely have no desire to put their best team on the park every week and rest key players whenever they to because there is no real advantage under your theory to finish first or 8th. Why do I say this? It is because there is no incentive to be successful during the home and away season and the reason we have a ladder becoms redundant.

The current system is fair because it rewards the best teams at the right time of the season. People can criticise Port Adelaide for failing at the right time to win in the season and justifiably do so, because they failed to succeed as minor premiers despite being given as much of a chance as possible to do so. This rightly rewards them for their sustained success over 22 rounds of the homer and away season. It is harder though to adequately dispute the lack of success of Geelong in 1997 who were given only a minor advantage for being a top two team and there were consequences that could be much larger for losing.

Your final 10 system would be an absolute farce of a system should it be boought into play, as it actually encourages teams to finish mid table on the ladder. Why do I say this? Again it punishesn teams who are successful and rewards those who are mediocre. It means the first team have to go into the game with the mental viewpoint that they have no second chances and despite their season, if they lose they are out. What's not to say they could come up against a team with momentum like a Collingwood in 07 or a Brisbane in 1995 and push or beat the top sides?

The finals system has to be structured in a way to support the good teams and anything that doesn't will just throw the competition into disarray.

 

[Dan26]

So what you aRE ULTIMATELY SAYING IS A TEAM SHOULD FACE SEVERE punishment for losing 1 game due to a bad run or injuries, despite finishing 20-2 on the ladder

Didn't St.Kild and Geelong BOTH face severe punishment for losing if they had lost their Preliminary Finals last year? Obviously that was a problem for you? So, why didn't you like that last year?

Under the CURRENT final-8, the top two teams can both be eliminated after one loss without getting a second chance (which is a good thing).

Finals are not, and never have been about getting second chances. They are about performing on the day. In the NFL it is total elimination in the finals.

Think about the logic of it. Under the current system, if the top two teams can both be eliminated after one loss WITHOUT GETTING A SECOND CHANCE in the Prelim or the Grand Final, why do we have double chances at all?

The NFL rewards the top seeds with a week off and home ground advantage. You don't need a secoond chance (which only applies in the first week anyway) to reward a top team. There are other, better and more appropriate ways to reward the top teams.

There are many different systems to use. I think the final-10 will be used by the AFL because it allows more teams in the finals which means more menaingFUL matches as the season progresses. My personal preference is a knockout final-9, and I have 4 ways that can work.

I'm not a fan of any system that uses double chances. Finals are not about getting second chances - they are about performing on the day.

But all that aside- the system that was used in 1997, even though I hated it, like I hate any syste that keeps teams in it after losing, was NOT unfair on Geelong. Geelong deserved to be travelling to Adelaide in week 2.

I hope you read my earlier post. I'm a bit of an expert on finals system, and I can tell you the probabilities of every system ever devised (yes I hve no life ; ) ) but I can assure you Geelong were not hard done by.

 

[hilly]

Look at the World Cup. You can't play all 31 opponents home and away can you? So, they group them and they make sure that everyone in a group has the same fixture as everyone else, and they are all fighting for the same thing - to be group champions.

The only reason it becomes unfair is if the divisions are very small (such as the NFL and in the World Cup where each division is 4 teams out of 32) meaning there is a high mathematical probability that one division could all have "sub-par" teams in it.

Except World Cup groups are seeded according to their FIFA ranking and their continent, with the host nation/s seeded.

Not perfect but the groups are, by and large, fair.

 

[Dan26]

Except World Cup groups are seeded according to their FIFA ranking and their continent, with the host nation/s seeded.

Not perfect but the groups are, by and large, fair.

Yes, that's true. Good call.

In the NFL, there is a 5.05% chance that any given group can comprise totally of teams that are in the "worst half" of the league (i.e teams 17-32 talent-wise)

1 out of 20 is fairly significant when you consider there are 8 divisions. Every two and a half years it happens, on average.

Would never happen in the AFL. Only a 1 in 223 chance, which is a big big reason why divisions should be used, when we hit 18 teams.

 

[Dan26]

People can criticise Port Adelaide for failing at the right time to win in the season and justifiably do so, because they failed to succeed as minor premiers despite being given as much of a chance as possible to do so. This rightly rewards them for their sustained success over 22 rounds of the homer and away season. It is harder though to adequately dispute the lack of success of Geelong in 1997 who were given only a minor advantage for being a top two team and there were consequences that could be much larger for losing.

Let me post two factual circumstances for you:

A.) 2003 - Port (1st) lose to 4th. Later in the finals series they play a knockout final versus 2nd (Collingwood), where Collingwood was the home team, even though Port finished higher than Collingwood

A.) 1997 - Geelong (2nd) lose to 7th. Later in the finals series they play a knockout final versus 4th (Adelaide), where Adelaide was the home team, even though Geelong finished higher than Adelaide.

Now, I know that both Collingwood (in A.) and Adelaide (in B.) earnt the right to host the finals in question.

The question I have for YOU, is why do you believe Geelong should have hosted Adelaide, when you apparently think it was fine for Collingwood to host Port? Under your (flawed) logic, shouldn't Port host Collingwood?

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

What about two conferences.

Jack Dyer Conference
Western Bulldogs
North Melbourne
Richmond
Hawthorn
Sydney
Port Adelaide
Fremantle
Collingwood
St. Kilda
Carlton
Adelaide
West Coast
Essendon
Geelong
Brisbane Lions
Melbourne

And the...
Andrew Demetriou Conference
Western Sydney
Gold Coast

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Kinda what I said in the marquee thread


Play these games 6 times in 3 years


- Freo v WCE
- Port v Adelaide
- Hawks v Geelong
- stk v WB
- Melb v NM
- coll v carl
- ess v rich
- syd v west syd
- bris v gc



everyone else play each other 4 times in 3 years

 

[dymmot]

Let me post two factual circumstances for you:

A.) 2003 - Port (1st) lose to 4th. Later in the finals series they play a knockout final versus 2nd (Collingwood), where Collingwood was the home team, even though Port finished higher than Collingwood

A.) 1997 - Geelong (2nd) lose to 7th. Later in the finals series they play a knockout final versus 4th (Adelaide), where Adelaide was the home team, even though Geelong finished higher than Adelaide.

Now, I know that both Collingwood (in A.) and Adelaide (in B.) earnt the right to host the finals in question.

The question I have for YOU, is why do you believe Geelong should have hosted Adelaide, when you apparently think it was fine for Collingwood to host Port? Under your (flawed) logic, shouldn't Port host Collingwood?

You have missed my point completely and it has nothing to do with my supposedly flawed logic.

Adelaide earning the right under that system to host a home final was a farce in the first place. My point is the McIntyre system was a failure and disliked by people because it was deemed unfair to the better teams in terms of rewarding them with finals benefits such as being guaranteed a double chance and two home finals.

The difference in the systems is that the top teams play for the home preliminary final and the week off if they win. If they lose however they get a second chance and to do it at home. This rewards them thoroughly for their good season's performance and gives them some protection to stay in the top 4.

The answer to the question is Geelong should have hosted Adelaide due to being the better team across 22 games of the H & A season and given reward and protection accordingly. This is reflected in the current finals system that people wanted, the AFL wanted and appreciate because it gives the top 4 a fairer chance of making the preliminary final. Under your logic Adelaide deserved it because they won but what you are failing to realise is Collingwood won their first final and Port got to host their secondf final in a repecharge style system to give them another crack at the title.

Is this simple enough for you to understand?

 

[Dan26]

Adelaide earning the right under that system to host a home final was a farce in the first place.

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 difference in the systems is that the top teams play for the home preliminary final and the week off if they win. If they lose however they get a second chance and to do it at home. This rewards them thoroughly for their good season's performance and gives them some protection to stay in the top 4.

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.

The answer to the question is Geelong should have hosted Adelaide due to being the better team across 22 games of the H & A season

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!

Collingwood won their first final and Port got to host their secondf final in a repecharge style system to give them another crack at the title.

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.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

26 round fixture, each team plays all others once and then half the teams a second time. Teams play each other team once before any of the "double up" matches. I.E you play a team the second time from round 18-26.

Top 8 - Bottom 10- Leave finals as they are.

Scrap the NAB cup to make up the extra 4 weeks. Clubs can schedule inter/intra club matches in the offseason.

This would make the ladder more competitive, with less teams playing finals than teams that dont. The fight to get into the 8 will be intense.

(Didnt read the thread just wanted to leave a short and sweet summary of my opinion)