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

[Dan26]

So playing 8 finals in 3 weeks, and giving significant byes to top teams to reduce the amount of games is something that's not going to happen.

.

The knockout final-10 has 9 finals over 4 weeks (2-4-2-1) which is exactly the same as the current final-8 (4-2-2-1)

Financially, there would be no difference.

And it’s fairer.

And it reduces dead rubbers.

 

[Underarm]

A final-10 doesn't have to have more finals matches. In fact, I think it works better if it remains over four weeks, and remains at 9 finals matches.

Certainly with 18 teams, and the possibility of 19, the knockout final-10 over 4 weeks, must be a serious consideration.

Winners in bold

WEEK 1
1st elimination final: 7 v 10
2nd elimination Final: 8 v 9

WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest ranked Elimination final winner (1 v 8)
2nd Semi Final: 2nd vs highest ranked Elimination final winner (2 v 7)
3rd Semi Final : 3 v 6
4th Semi Final : 4 v 5

WEEK 3
1st Preliminary Final: highest ranked team vs lowest ranked team (1 v 4)
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest ranked team vs 2nd lowest ranked team (2 v 3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final (1 v 2)


None of the top-6 can be eliminated before the second week so, no different to how the top-4 are currently treated under the current system.

There are five sets of advantages:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

NO DOUBLE CHANCES (good riddance)

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances. This system encapsulates everything finals should be, whilst giving the AFL less dead rubbers in the last few weeks of the season.

The major difference between this and the current system is that the current system ensures more matches for the best teams.

 

[Dan26]

Didn’t it start as a right to challenge for the minor premier if they didn’t win it?

Yes, prior to 1931, the minor premier was guaranteed to be in the Grand Final.

The first week had 1v3 and 2v4 (assume 2nd beat 4th in these examples)

The two winners would play each other in week 2

If 1st won in the first week they would get 2 chances to win the grand Final. If 1st lost in week 1, they would get one chance to win the Grand Final.

So if 1st beat 3rd, they would play the winner of 2v4 in week 2 (say, 2nd) and if 1st beat 2nd they win the premiership. If they lost they play 2nd again in week 3 to decide the flag

If 1st lost to 3rd in week 1, then week 2 would be 2nd vs 3rd. The winner of that plays 1st in the Grand Final, but 1st only gets that one opportunity to win the Grand Final.

 

[delta_magpie]

Wildcard round is from media outlets that like the sound of their own voice
foxfooty's the tackle brought the topic up again tonight
during the prefinals bye 7-10 and 8-9th play each other to go against 5th and 6th the next week.
statistically 7th and 8th will win and the same match ups will be in week 1 of the finals..EXCEPT... one key difference... now 7th and 8th didnt get a week off and going against 5th and 6th who did.

Its a huge advantage for for finishing 5th and 6th to play against a team that didn't get a week off to manage injuries. Dont forget the wild card round is an elimination game... those teams are not going to be resting their stars for the final the next week.

Complete nonsense, and makes the finals a circus. Instead of giving 10 teams the chance to win the cup, you are actually going to be only giving 6 teams the best chance.

P.S we have the AFLW in the bye week, go watch that and leave our game alone.

 

[Dan26]

Wildcard round is from media outlets that like the sound of their own voice
foxfooty's the tackle brought the topic up again tonight
during the prefinals bye 7-10 and 8-9th play each other to go against 5th and 6th the next week.
statistically 7th and 8th will win and the same match ups will be in week 1 of the finals..EXCEPT... one key difference... now 7th and 8th didnt get a week off and going against 5th and 6th who did.

Its a huge advantage for for finishing 5th and 6th to play against a team that didn't get a week off to manage injuries. Dont forget the wild card round is an elimination game... those teams are not going to be resting their stars for the final the next week.

Complete nonsense, and makes the finals a circus. Instead of giving 10 teams the chance to win the cup, you are actually going to be only giving 6 teams the best chance.

P.S we have the AFLW in the bye week, go watch that and leave our game alone.

That’s why you make it a knockout final-10 over 4 weeks, with the “pre-finals bye” moved to the week before the Grand Final.

That way, the path to the premiership for the top teams is:

Bye
Match
Match
Bye
Match

Instead of the current system where the path to the premiership is:

Bye
Match
Bye
Match
Match

You shouldn’t have two byes in three weeks, and the knockout final-10 with a fortnight between the Prelims and the Grand Final prevents this.

 

[peetoo]

Yep. Proper final 10 or just no

 

[Purple Suit]

Wildcard round is from media outlets that like the sound of their own voice
foxfooty's the tackle brought the topic up again tonight
during the prefinals bye 7-10 and 8-9th play each other to go against 5th and 6th the next week.
statistically 7th and 8th will win and the same match ups will be in week 1 of the finals..EXCEPT... one key difference... now 7th and 8th didnt get a week off and going against 5th and 6th who did.

Its a huge advantage for for finishing 5th and 6th to play against a team that didn't get a week off to manage injuries. Dont forget the wild card round is an elimination game... those teams are not going to be resting their stars for the final the next week.

Complete nonsense, and makes the finals a circus. Instead of giving 10 teams the chance to win the cup, you are actually going to be only giving 6 teams the best chance.

P.S we have the AFLW in the bye week, go watch that and leave our game alone.

These days, a bye can get you in as much trouble as playing. Some teams seem to struggle straight afterwards so I recon 5th & 6th might not have it as easy as you suggest.

When they do go to 10 teams, bolting 7 v 10 & 8 v 9 into the old bye week is the best solution.

That’s why you make it a knockout final-10 over 4 weeks, with the “pre-finals bye” moved to the week before the Grand Final.

That way, the path to the premiership for the top teams is:

Bye
Match
Match
Bye
Match

Instead of the current system where the path to the premiership is:

Bye
Match
Bye
Match
Match

You shouldn’t have two byes in three weeks, and the knockout final-10 with a fortnight between the Prelims and the Grand Final prevents this.

The current 8 system is much better than the old one. Highest ranked winner bs and waiting on results is not enjoyable.

Your system would also pit a team finishing 1st or 2nd, coming off a bye playing a sudden death game against a team who just won a final. They might not even have a home ground advantage because it’s Collingwood v Carlton at the G for instance and a whole season of being better is irrelevant.

 

[Chiz]

These days, a bye can get you in as much trouble as playing. Some teams seem to struggle straight afterwards so I recon 5th & 6th might not have it as easy as you suggest.

When they do go to 10 teams, bolting 7 v 10 & 8 v 9 into the old bye week is the best solution.



The current 8 system is much better than the old one. Highest ranked winner bs and waiting on results is not enjoyable.

Your system would also pit a team finishing 1st or 2nd, coming off a bye playing a sudden death game against a team who just won a final. They might not even have a home ground advantage because it’s Collingwood v Carlton at the G for instance and a whole season of being better is irrelevant.

It seems this way with the mid-season bye - the team coming off a bye often struggles. But before the pre-finals bye was introduced, the team that had a bye leading into the preliminary final nearly always won (nearly 90%), suggesting that a bye late in the season when teams are tiring is a massive advantage. The pre-finals bye has diluted this advantage for the QF winners, and the second bye now acts more like the mid-season bye.

The knockout final 10 suggested resolves this - the top 6 get an opportunity to refresh their players before the finals, while the top two get an opponent who hasn't had that opportunity and is likely to be tiring late in the season. The top two winning their first finals won't be a foregone conclusion (nor should it be), but the bye would act as a huge advantage on top of any home ground advantage.

 

[Cam Payne]

Wildcard??? Why not play regular season and everyone plays finals? 1 vs 18, 2 vs 17 etc and work it's way through week by week to a GF. The highest placed teams could have a double chance and week off worked in. This means the big 4 vfl teams always play finals which is ultimately what the AFL want.

 

[Dan26]

Your system would also pit a team finishing 1st or 2nd, coming off a bye playing a sudden death game against a team who just won a final. They might not even have a home ground advantage because it’s Collingwood v Carlton at the G for instance and a whole season of being better is irrelevant.

So? Under the current final 8, a team finishing 1st or 2nd, coming off a bye plays a sudden death Preliminary Final against a team who just won a final. They might not even have a home ground advantage because it’s Collingwood v Carlton at the G for instance

 

[Purple Suit]

So? Under the current final 8, a team finishing 1st or 2nd, coming off a bye plays a sudden death Preliminary Final against a team who just won a final. They might not even have a home ground advantage because it’s Collingwood v Carlton at the G for instance

But they have won a final already & there is only the GF left. Sudden death is fine at that stage but not their first final when they have finished top after 24 rounds. You need to reward the season more and the current system is the most balanced we have had so far.

 

[Dan26]

But they have won a final already & there is only the GF left.

So?

Sudden death is fine at that stage but not their first final when they have finished top after 24 rounds.

If sudden death is fine in the Preliminary Final and the top team can be out after one loss without getting a second chance, then it’s fine for any final.

You need to reward the season more and the current system is the most balanced we have had so far.

You don’t need a double chance to reward the top teams. Look how they do it in the NFL. The week off replaces the double chance.

Under a knockout final-10 the top teams cannot be eliminated in week one. They can only be eliminated from week 2 onwards, just like the current final-8.

 

[1990crow]

Having 20 teams and a top 8 will be a problem.
Keeping interest for 12 teams out of the race could impact crowds and tv.

 

[Purple Suit]

So?

If sudden death is fine in the Preliminary Final and the top team can be out after one loss without getting a second chance, then it’s fine for any final.

You don’t need a double chance to reward the top teams. Look how they do it in the NFL. The week off replaces the double chance.

Under a knockout final-10 the top teams cannot be eliminated in week one. They can only be eliminated from week 2 onwards, just like the current final-8.

The current system is fine, your idea is just changing our existing system to the old McIntyre system 8 system with the two extra teams bolted on at the front.

We had that 8 team system from 94-99 and it was bad as it didn’t reward the season achievements enough and other results had a lot of impact. Hence why is was changed, were you watching footy back then?

 

[Dan26]

The current system is fine, your idea is just changing our existing system to the old McIntyre system 8 system with the two extra teams bolted on at the front.

We had that 8 team system from 94-99 and it was bad as it didn’t reward the season achievements enough and other results had a lot of impact. Hence why is was changed, were you watching footy back then?

Have you even read my posts? My proposed system has nothing in common with the 1994-99 system which was a convoluted mess.

Under that system, 5th and 6th could get a second chance. And if 1st and 2nd won their first finals, the matches between 3v6 and 4v5 became dead rubbers with those teams playing amongst themselves in week 2 in a different combination.

That system was a friggin mess.

I’m proposing a knockout final-10, with 9 finals over 4 weeks (5 weeks if you move the pre-finals bye to the week before the Grand Final)

The system is knockout, very easy to understand, fair, and i posted it in detail only a page or so back. Did you even bother to read it?

 

[Purple Suit]

Have you even read my posts? My proposed system has nothing in common with the 1994-99 system which was a convoluted mess.

Under that system, 5th and 6th could get a second chance. And if 1st and 2nd won their first finals, the matches between 3v6 and 4v5 became dead rubbers with those teams playing amongst themselves in week 2 in a different combination.

That system was a friggin mess.

I’m proposing a knockout final-10, with 9 finals over 4 weeks (5 weeks if you move the pre-finals bye to the week before the Grand Final)

The system is knockout, very easy to understand, fair, and i posted it in detail only a page or so back. Did you even bother to read it?

So you include 2 more teams and have the same amount of games as the current 8 team system. AFL would never do it, they would rather have 2 more games & just bolt on to the current system for more money.

The top teams being knocked out in their first game is also flawed, need more reward for ladder position over the whole year. Prelim/semi knockout is fine as it’s not your first game & it has to happen sometime.

 

[Dan26]

So you include 2 more teams and have the same amount of games as the current 8 team system. AFL would never do it, they would rather have 2 more games & just bolt on to the current system for more money.

I don't think money is the issue here, otherwise why not propose a 14-game finals series, or 16-game? Why not have a 24-match home and away series? The issue is more a cultural issue of being attached to the idiotic idea of double chances.

Finals are not about getting second chances for losing - they are about performing on the day

The top teams being knocked out in their first game is also flawed,

NO IT'S NOT!

Facing knockout in a seeded system is not a "flaw"

If you can be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim in the current system, then you should be able to be eliminated after one loss at any point. Under the knockout final-10, none of the top 6 can be eliminated in the first week - they can only be eliminated from the second week onwards - which is no different to the potential exit points for the top-4 under the current system.

Its all no different in principle to how the NFL works, where they had a knockout final-12 (now a knockout final-14)

need more reward for ladder position over the whole year.

You seem to think that they only way to reward a team is with a double chance, which is clearly total bullshit.

The knockout final-10 has 5 different sets of advantages. Here they are:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

 

[Purple Suit]

I don't think money is the issue here, otherwise why not propose a 14-game finals series, or 16-game? Why not have a 24-match home and away series? The issue is more a cultural issue of being attached to the idiotic idea of double chances.

Finals are not about getting second chances for losing - they are about performing on the day



NO IT'S NOT!

Facing knockout in a seeded system is not a "flaw"

If you can be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim in the current system, then you should be able to be eliminated after one loss at any point. Under the knockout final-10, none of the top 6 can be eliminated in the first week - they can only be eliminated from the second week onwards - which is no different to the potential exit points for the top-4 under the current system.

Its all no different in principle to how the NFL works, where they had a knockout final-12 (now a knockout final-14)



You seem to think that they only way to reward a team is with a double chance, which is clearly total bullshit.

The knockout final-10 has 5 different sets of advantages. Here they are:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

Sorry,
Look at finals systems around the world. Double chances or series of multiple games are common unless it is a knockout comp or tournament.

Rarely does the best team not win the flag with the current system and it heavily favors the top 4 sides. This is a good system.

 

[Chiz]

Sorry,
Look at finals systems around the world. Double chances or series of multiple games are common unless it is a knockout comp or tournament.

Rarely does the best team not win the flag with the current system and it heavily favors the top 4 sides. This is a good system.

A 'best of seven' series (or equivalent) is in no way comparable to a double chance. Double chance finals are simply re-seeding matches.

I'm not sure how can you say that 'rarely' does the best team not win the flag - this is simply defining the best as the one that wins: "this team won, therefore they were the best" (with the same statement applying if the other team wins). What makes finals exciting is that either side can win on the day.

I suspect the current system has avoided a lot of criticism because the system it replaced was so bad. But there are still many flaws, mostly caused by the double chance.

 

[Dan26]

Sorry,
Look at finals systems around the world. Double chances or series of multiple games are common unless it is a knockout comp or tournament.

Rubbish. They are not common at all.

Tournaments that end with a knockout final are routinely preceded by two knockout semi-finals. Cricket world cups for instance. The NFL of course. Super Rugby uses a straight knockout top-8 ; before that they had a knockout top-6 with the top two teams getting a bye. English Soccer at the lower divisions uses a top-6 where the top- 2 get promoted and 3,4,5,6 play two knockout semi-finals and a final to see who gets promoted.

This double chance crap is the exception. Double chances have NO fair place in a system that already uses knockout for the top teams in the Preliminary Finals.

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing. Get rid of them.

 

[Dan26]

A 'best of seven' series (or equivalent) is in no way comparable to a double chance. Double chance finals are simply re-seeding matches.

I'm not sure how can you say that 'rarely' does the best team not win the flag - this is simply defining the best as the one that wins: "this team won, therefore they were the best" (with the same statement applying if the other team wins). What makes finals exciting is that either side can win on the day.

I suspect the current system has avoided a lot of criticism because the system it replaced was so bad. But there are still many flaws, mostly caused by the double chance.

Exactly. All double chances are "re-seeding" matches. They are totally unnecessary.

Best-of-sevens are actually knockout series. It's the same principle as knockout due to the seeding. Each best-of-seven series is one knockout entity.

 

[Yoda_]

So the first time the AFL has genuinely got interest in up to 12 teams still in finals race and wants to off site this by a finals wilcard

Seems counter intuitive to me

 

[Rabish Binney]

FFS, if you cant make the top 8 then why should a club deserve another chance to make it?

 

[Dan26]

FFS, if you cant make the top 8 then why should a club deserve another chance to make it?

Do you think that when it was a 16 team comp, that 8 making it (50%) was the right proportion?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Do you think that when it was a 16 team comp, that 8 making it (50%) was the right proportion?

50% is way too high. Eight is only acceptable with 18 teams because the fixture is lopsided. Eight is fine until at least 24 teams, at which point the league's structure would probably have changed anyway. (Most likely to that most horrendous of all, conferences.)