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

[PerthBoy86]

When we go to 19 teams, a final 10 makes sense - you want to aim for around half the teams in the finals. However, I'd have the top 6 with a bye (instead of the pre-finals bye), 7v10, 8v9 wildcard games, then into a knockout final 8 - it's a much better system than the current one.

Why does it need to be half? I mean even with 8 out of 18 we've only had one premier from outside the top 4.

 

[peetoo]

Oh fabric of the game, give me a break, LOL. Are you even aware that we have had a knockout Grand Final for 100 years, and that the top team has been able to be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim for the last 30 years.

It's not part of the fabric of the game at all. In fact it goes against the nature and intent of finals, which is to perform on the day, which is what 7 of the 9 finals are - knockout. Because you know, we LIKE knockout. That's why we like the Grand Final.

If you want "double chances" go and support some best-of-3 or best-of-7 rubbish.

There have been changes, but they should avoid too many changes. For example the final 8 was changed ‘because too hard for people to understand’

I’m all for a double final 5, but do it when Tassie enters the comp. Top 2 should be boosted over 3-4

 

[Billy ray]

Oh fabric of the game, give me a break, LOL. Are you even aware that we have had a knockout Grand Final for 100 years, and that the top team has been able to be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim for the last 30 years.

It's not part of the fabric of the game at all. In fact it goes against the nature and intent of finals, which is to perform on the day, which is what 7 of the 9 finals are - knockout. Because you know, we LIKE knockout. That's why we like the Grand Final.

If you want "double chances" go and support some best-of-3 or best-of-7 rubbish.

Again i don’t disagree with this.
Im just saying what “they” - the narrative - will be.

 

[Chiz]

They have had a 2-week break before the superbowl many times. It allows the build up to be bigger.

It also means that should a player enter concussion protocols after the prelim, they would be able to play in the Grand Final.

I personally love the idea.

The concussion protocol argument is pretty strong - harsh on a player to miss a GF. The AFL would also be more flexible with scheduling the PFs (not having to worry about travel, extra day's break etc.), plus GF teams could participate properly in the Brownlow medal. You could even have a marquee game or something on the bye weekend to keep the momentum building.

Alright, you've won me over.

 

[Chiz]

I can't believe they're even entertaining the idea. Top 4 already get the advantage of two chances etc, so 6-8 have to play another final on top? What bullsh*t, just leave it alone and stop changing it to make for money.

Hence why you would move to the knockout final 10 - same number of finals, but better distribution of advantages across teams.

 

[Chiz]

There have been changes, but they should avoid too many changes. For example the final 8 was changed ‘because too hard for people to understand’

I’m all for a double final 5, but do it when Tassie enters the comp. Top 2 should be boosted over 3-4

A knockout final 10 is far simpler to understand than the double McIntyre final 5 - you win, you progress through; you lose, you're out.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Under no circumstances should double chances ever be used in a finals series. Ever. Finals should be knockout, with a guaranteed week off replacing the double chance (like the NFL)

There is literally no reason to give teams second chances for losing, provided the teams are seeded correctly.

To show you how stupid the double chance is under the current system, you look at it mathematically. The current final 8 does not have a guaranteed week off (ignoring the pre-finals bye) nor does it have a guaranteed double chance. The top-4 teams have:

- a 50% chance of using a double chance
- a 50% chance of having a week off.

They can't have both.

All the knockout system does is take the 50% chance of using a double chance and ADDING it to the 50% chance of having a week off and making it a 100% chance (guaranteed) week off. So instead of 50-50, it's 0-100

The 100% guaranteed week off is a mathematical replacement for the "50% chance of getting a week off and a 50% chance of using a double chance" under the current system.

It just shows you how useless and pointless double chances are. They are not in the spirit of what finals are about.

Well given current system has double chances and that’s what the public appear happy with maybe accept you are the old man yelling at clouds

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not sure how I'd feel about a pre-GF bye - I guess the benefit would be allowing teams to get injured players back (higher quality game), but the downside might be that the finals system loses some momentum after the PFs. In any case, it doesn't provide either GF team with an advantage over the other.

I certainly have an issue with BYE-match-BYE - if anything, the evidence suggests the second bye is almost a disadvantage against a team that has gone BYE-match-match.

Did bye match bye hurt the top teams in the final 5?

 

[Dan26]

Well given current system has double chances and that’s what the public appear happy with maybe accept you are the old man yelling at clouds

Happy with it? Last time I checked people love the Grand Final (because it's knockout) and love the Prelims for the same reason.

People love the do-or die nature of finals.

Double chances are a crock of shit

 

[Crankyhawk]

Happy with it? Last time I checked people love the Grand Final (because it's knockout) and love the Prelims for the same reason.

People love the do-or die nature of finals.

Double chances are a crock of shit

I don’t see any large movement calling to get rid of the double chance
It has always been a part of how afl structure finals even in vfl days

 

[Dan26]

I don’t see any large movement calling to get rid of the double chance
It has always been a part of how afl structure finals even in vfl days

That doesn’t make it right. Get rid of it.

I’d rather be right and in the minority than be wrong and in the majority.

 

[Chiz]

Did bye match bye hurt the top teams in the final 5?

We haven't had a final 5 for over 30 years - hardly a relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is PF results since the pre-finals bye was introduced.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That doesn’t make it right. Get rid of it.

I’d rather be right and in the minority than be wrong and in the majority.

ah so the type that arbitarily decides that what you believe is right and stuff everyone else.

awesome

 

[Chiz]

ah so the type that arbitarily decides that what you believe is right and stuff everyone else.

awesome

If you'd bothered to look through the thread you'll find numerous posts outlining the benefits of the knockout final 10 (and the issues with the current system). If you want to outline your arguments as to why the double chance system is better, go nuts.

 

[Dan26]

ah so the type that arbitarily decides that what you believe is right and stuff everyone else.

awesome

I respect everyone’s right to have an opinion but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I respect everyone’s right to have an opinion but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

The bit where you claimed you were right based on purely your own preferences doesn’t sound like respect for others to me

 

[Dan26]

The bit where you claimed you were right based on purely your own preferences doesn’t sound like respect for others to me

Of course I think I’m right - That’s what having an opinion is all about. Free speech isn’t “me agreeing with you”

 

[Fabab]

Not needed stop changing the comp/rules ffs,every year ffs.

 

[Purple Suit]

Of course I think I’m right - That’s what having an opinion is all about. Free speech isn’t “me agreeing with you”

You and Chiz are right hey Dan.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I like how Serie B structure their playoffs for promotion. Basically if the third placed team is X amount of points ahead of their next opponent then they go through, however if they are within that threshold then the teams from third to eighth play off.

Something like that I could get around ie if 8th is more than say 6 points ahead of 9th, they go through BUT if they’re not then everyone within whatever the threshold is could play off.

 

[NeutralFan]

Find it strange when people say "8 is enough" and also "It's rare to win outside Top 4 anyway".
So what's wrong with adding 7v10, 8v9 for more competitive games and less dead rubbers at the end of the season?

 

[revo333]

The concussion protocol argument is pretty strong - harsh on a player to miss a GF. The AFL would also be more flexible with scheduling the PFs (not having to worry about travel, extra day's break etc.), plus GF teams could participate properly in the Brownlow medal. You could even have a marquee game or something on the bye weekend to keep the momentum building.

The moment a good player misses a GF through concussion the AFL will bring in the pre GF bye.

 

[Dan26]

The moment a good player misses a GF through concussion the AFL will bring in the pre GF bye.

Why wait? Do it now

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

The fact that each team doesn’t play each other twice or the fact that the fixture is uneven depending on who you place twice means the wildcard concept is well overdue.

 

[peetoo]

The fact that each team doesn’t play each other twice or the fact that the fixture is uneven depending on who you place twice means the wildcard concept is well overdue.

Week 1 should be home and away over 2 weeks. That would overcome qualifying bias
Won’t work because too many teams in one city. No point having home and away if it’s the same venue