Has Competitive Equalisation created a need for wild-card finals?

[Dan26]

Hawthorn got big crowds beating carlton and Collingwood, essentially elimination games. Might not have been the interest if it was a final 10. Why should hawks be forced to beat them again instead of the week off bulldogs get, for the same wins?

This makes zero sense. It’s like having a final 4 and extending it to 6 and claiming that a team who got into 4th (suppose it was Hawthorn) shouldn’t be forced to beat Carlton and Collingwood again.

It’s just a final-10. That’s it.

 

[Dan26]

The difference between finishing 4th and 5th is far greater than the difference between finishing 6th and 7th (and is a major flaw with the current system in my view). 4th has three times the probability of winning the grand final, plus a guaranteed home semi or prelim - looks like the difference this season will be half a game, in other seasons it has just been percentage.

Yes, the chances of winning the premiership from 4th is 18.75%. From 5th it is 6.25%.

4th has a 300% greater chance than 5th. Three times.

That’s why Brisbanes loss on the weekend was so catastrophic. People don’t realise how catastrophic it was until you look at the probabilities.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Thing I don't understand about a wildcard round is that if you're going to play 2 games in the first week before finals, why not make it 4 and also have 3rd play 6th and 4th play 5th for a chance to "jump" into that double-chance position?

What this naturally extends to is the McIntyre Final Five system where you just have an extra week with the Final 5 GF being the new prelims and the two group winners facing off in the GF.

 

[Dan26]

Thing I don't understand about a wildcard round is that if you're going to play 2 games in the first week before finals, why not make it 4 and also have 3rd play 6th and 4th play 5th for a chance to "jump" into that double-chance position?

What this naturally extends to is the McIntyre Final Five system where you just have an extra week with the Final 5 GF being the new prelims and the two group winners facing off in the GF.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again until I am blue in the face - knockout final-10 is the way to go. 9 finals in 4 weeks.

Move the pre finals bye to the week before the GF so the path to the premiership for the top teams is:

Bye-match-match-bye-match

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again until I am blue in the face - knockout final-10 is the way to go. 9 finals in 4 weeks.

Move the pre finals bye to the week before the GF so the path to the premiership for the top teams is:

Bye-match-match-bye-match

Historically the VFL/AFL has been about using finals to raise extra revenue (all revenue raised centrally, not by the AFL, and this was the case even 100 years ago). They play additional games for this purpose, and highly advantage top teams through double chances, because there's still of that English cultural element of a true premier being top of the ladder (though somewhat diminished as soon as the fixture stopped being every team, once home, once away). They did away with the top-of-the-ladder challenge rule if they didn't win the flag, but it existed for a reason.

Your suggestion may make sense in the purposes of sporting fairness, but it's not reflective, culturally, financially, of why the AFL's finals series exist the way that it does.

 

[Dan26]

Historically the VFL/AFL has been about using finals to raise extra revenue (all revenue raised centrally, not by the AFL, and this was the case even 100 years ago). They play additional games for this purpose, and highly advantage top teams through double chances, because there's still of that English cultural element of a true premier being top of the ladder (though somewhat diminished as soon as the fixture stopped being every team, once home, once away). They did away with the top-of-the-ladder challenge rule if they didn't win the flag, but it existed for a reason.

Your suggestion may make sense in the purposes of sporting fairness, but it's not reflective, culturally, financially, of why the AFL's finals series exist the way that it does.

I’m not advocating a reduction in finals . The finals series will stay at 9 matches.

The reduction in dead rubbers would obviously create an increase in attendance. The Coll-Melb game this week would have been effectively an elimination final if there was a final-10. The fact that it is dead rubber will cost the AFL 30,000 fans.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I’m not advocating a reduction in finals . The finals series will stay at 9 matches.

The reduction in dead rubbers would obviously create an increase in attendance. The Coll-Melb game this week would have been effectively an elimination final if there was a final-10. The fact that it is dead rubber will cost the AFL 30,000 fans.

It's still making a point about if there ever was to be an extra week in which finals are played, it would be to play more games and maximise revenue.

 

[Dan26]

It's still making a point about if there ever was to be an extra week in which finals are played, it would be to play more games and maximise revenue.

Why not have a 6-week finals series and 13 games then? You can take that logic and apply it indefinitely.

We have already added 9 games to the season for gather round to increase the amount of games (including finals) from 207 to 216. Is it that important to make it 218 matches?

Had the knockout final-10 been introduced THIS year (with the same amount of finals) we would have seen bigger crowds for the Melbourne-Collingwood game this Friday night (90,000 instead of 65,000), probably a bigger crowd for the Essendon-Sydney game (40,000 instead of 33,000)

Unquestionably there would have been a bigger crowd for the Collingwood-Brisbane game (75,000 instead of 61,000).

The Melbourne-Port Adelaide game two weeks ago (with Melbourne out of realistic contention) would have got 25,000 instead of 16,000 if Melbourne were still in contention with a final-10.

There are your financial benefits.

 

[peetoo]

This makes zero sense. It’s like having a final 4 and extending it to 6 and claiming that a team who got into 4th (suppose it was Hawthorn) shouldn’t be forced to beat Carlton and Collingwood again.

It’s just a final-10. That’s it.

Whaataboutism. Most years the wild card will be snooze worthy

I was just saying anyone saying 2024 circumstances warranted a final 10 is way off the mark

 

[Osho]

Don't we already have 2 Wildcards in 7 and 8? If they want to go further, they should call it the Feral Card.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why not have a 6-week finals series and 13 games then? You can take that logic and apply it indefinitely.

We have already added 9 games to the season for gather round to increase the amount of games (including finals) from 207 to 216. Is it that important to make it 218 matches?

Had the knockout final-10 been introduced THIS year (with the same amount of finals) we would have seen bigger crowds for the Melbourne-Collingwood game this Friday night (90,000 instead of 65,000), probably a bigger crowd for the Essendon-Sydney game (40,000 instead of 33,000)

Unquestionably there would have been a bigger crowd for the Collingwood-Brisbane game (75,000 instead of 61,000).

The Melbourne-Port Adelaide game two weeks ago (with Melbourne out of realistic contention) would have got 25,000 instead of 16,000 if Melbourne were still in contention with a final-10.

There are your financial benefits.

You can't apply it indefinitely becuase there are calendar constriants? You can't extend the season into October or earlier in March. So you can't have a six, seven week finals series.

I'm making more the point that if they're going to play two finals games in the first week of a five-week finals series (the wildcard games), they may as well just consider it a proper final ten and play four finals games in the first week of a five-week finals series, which, holding everything else equal, would again increase revenue.

That would be in addition to the financial benefits you've already outlined.

 

[Chiz]

You can't apply it indefinitely becuase there are calendar constriants? You can't extend the season into October or earlier in March. So you can't have a six, seven week finals series.

You could extend the finals by reducing the length of the season. Doesn't mean it's the right call.

Personally I think 4 weeks is optional - you want to maximise interest, but also maintain momentum.

I'm making more the point that if they're going to play two finals games in the first week of a five-week finals series (the wildcard games), they may as well just consider it a proper final ten and play four finals games in the first week of a five-week finals series, which, holding everything else equal, would again increase revenue.

Recall that the AFL introduced the pre-finals bye because teams were resting players in the last round without the risk of dropping out of the top 4 (a consequence of a system that rewards finishing in the top 4, but doesn't reward much on the ordering within the top 4).

The same argument applies here to teams finishing 3-6 (noting that this year the ladder is closer than usual) - it would be better to give these teams a bye rather than introduce re-seeding matches.

That would be in addition to the financial benefits you've already outlined.

It's not as simple as more matches = more revenue. Ultimately you're only adding re-seeding matches, which are always going to generate less interest than knockout finals.

 

[Clark G]

You could extend the finals by reducing the length of the season. Doesn't mean it's the right call.

Personally I think 4 weeks is optional - you want to maximise interest, but also maintain momentum.

Recall that the AFL introduced the pre-finals bye because teams were resting players in the last round without the risk of dropping out of the top 4 (a consequence of a system that rewards finishing in the top 4, but doesn't reward much on the ordering within the top 4).

The same argument applies here to teams finishing 3-6 (noting that this year the ladder is closer than usual) - it would be better to give these teams a bye rather than introduce re-seeding matches.

It's not as simple as more matches = more revenue. Ultimately you're only adding re-seeding matches, which are always going to generate less interest than knockout finals.

It was actually teams finishing in the bottom half of the top eight that were the biggest culprits. Such as North in 2015. And it wasn’t always the last round that teams rested half the side, remember Freo in 2010 in the second last round.

 

[Chiz]

It was actually teams finishing in the bottom half of the top eight that were the biggest culprits. Such as North in 2015. And it wasn’t always the last round that teams rested half the side, remember Freo in 2010 in the second last round.

Freo in 2013 from memory were a culprit in the top 4. Obviously it can happen within the top 4 or the bottom half of the 8, but it's more likely that a team will be entrenched in the top 4 going into the last round than entrenched in the bottom half of the 8.

 

[oak79]

I hate that the afls main priority is money.

The Wildcard round is not actually wildcard - it's just another round of finals, further rewarding mediocrity. And actually makes it harder to win a flag from 7-8.

Wildcard only makes sense in a conference set up.

 

[Chiz]

I hate that the afls main priority is money.

The Wildcard round is not actually wildcard - it's just another round of finals, further rewarding mediocrity. And actually makes it harder to win a flag from 7-8.

Wildcard only makes sense in a conference set up.

These issues are resolved with a knockout system:
You still have 9 finals, still over 4 weeks.
7-8 still have to win 4 consecutive games.

As for wildcard only making sense in a conference setup, just because this might be the case in some US leagues doesn't mean the AFL can only bring it in with conferences.

 

[Dan26]

These issues are resolved with a knockout system:
You still have 9 finals, still over 4 weeks.
7-8 still have to win 4 consecutive games.

As for wildcard only making sense in a conference setup, just because this might be the case in some US leagues doesn't mean the AFL can only bring it in with conferences.

I can’t stress this enough:

The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.
The finals must be knockout.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

'Competitive equalisation' never existed in the first place. The AFL will do whatever helps line their pockets fuller and that's the end of the story.

 

[peetoo]

Mental note. The pre finals bye can be removed simply by saying so

 

[Cleansweep17]

Yes 18th should get to play in the GF

 

[justlookingaround]

Despite it being a very even season on the ladder with spots in the 8 up for grabs right until the last 2 weeks, I'd say the final 8 continues to be a solid indicator of the teams that deserve to play finals. Maybe even more so this year than in years gone past.
The final spot will come down to Freo and Carlton, who probably both are equally deserving to miss.
And of the would be wild card teams, I don't think Melbourne, Essendon or Collingwood would make a dent.
The gap between the top 6 and the wild card teams is arguably bigger than the top and bottom 4 of the 8.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Should be a final 16.

We can have 1v3, 2v4,5v7,6v8,9v11,10v12,13v15,14v16

Super duper ultimate wildcard round. Imagine how close each game would be!

 

[Chiz]

The gap between the top 6 and the wild card teams is arguably bigger than the top and bottom 4 of the 8.

Which is incidentally one of the problems of the current system - the top 4 get a huge advantage over the bottom 4 of the 8, such that winning from outside the top 4 is extremely unlikely, even for the most in-form team.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Which is incidentally one of the problems of the current system - the top 4 get a huge advantage over the bottom 4 of the 8, such that winning from outside the top 4 is extremely unlikely, even for the most in-form team.

The advantage is greatly reduced since the prefinals bye

 

[Chiz]

The advantage is greatly reduced since the prefinals bye

Still 3x the probability of winning from 4th than 5th, plus a guaranteed home SF or PF.