Expansion Should the AFL introduce a Wildcard Weekend?

[Dan26]

Using the NBA as an aspiring example undermines a lot of your points. Teams in that league can lose three games in every stage of the post-season and still win THE FINALS.

That's not an "apples vs oranges" comparison. The NBA playoffs are elimination series. Within each series, it is best-of-7, but each series itself is elimination.

Where is the entertainment value in 8th getting pummeled on the road by 1st?

1st vs 8th in an 18 team league is still a competitive match. And it's fairer.

Adelaide vs West Coast in week one this year (1v8) would have been a better match than the Adelaide vs GWS match (which was 1v4)

Any system that allows second chances for losing is a flawed system. Double chances are a money-making exercise, nothing more. They are just a way for the AFL to have 9 finals instead of 7. They suck and they go against the principle of what finals are about.

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing.

 

[Dan26]

This is the exact point I was making in my first post - that double-chance finals systems are driven by the same sense of ensuring fair reward for better teams as incorporating behinds into the scoring system is; in this case, particularly the unfairness of the top side being eliminated instantly. ).

What's wrong with the top team being eliminated after one loss? Adelaide could have been eliminated after one loss agaisnt Geelong on Friday night. Richmond could have been eliminated after one loss against GWS on Saturday.

It's not "unfair" to be eliminated after one loss, if you have a home match against 8th in your first final. You have been gifted a home final against the worst team in the finals (and in the case of a final-10 you'd have a week off in addition)

If you can't beat 8th (who played the week before) on your home ground, after you've had a week off, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

It's not "unfair" to be eliminated if you don't perform on the day against a weaker opponent.

Adelaide and Richmond both performed on the day and won, on their home grounds against weaker opponents. There was no second chance for either of them, NOR SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN,

 

[hcd199]

Ideally, no pre-finals bye:

5th v 6th
3rd v 4th
Bye 1st, 2nd

1st v Winner5/6
2nd v Winner 3/4

Grand Final

Obviously, less finals won't happen due to money. And especially not that many fewer. So, the system we have is the best realistic option.

This is a manifestly unfair system; how is it fair for 3rd and 4th to play each other in a knockout final, whilst 5th and 6th have the other knockout? Could be made fairer by playing 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th as knockouts, with 2nd to play the higher-ranked winner and 1st the lower-ranked one.

What's wrong with the top team being eliminated after one loss? Adelaide could have been eliminated after one loss agaisnt Geelong on Friday night. Richmond could have been eliminated after one loss against GWS on Saturday.

It's not "unfair" to be eliminated after one loss, if you have a home match against 8th in your first final. You have been gifted a home final against the worst team in the finals (and in the case of a final-10 you'd have a week off in addition)

If you can't beat 8th (who played the week before) on your home ground, after you've had a week off, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

It's not "unfair" to be eliminated if you don't perform on the day against a weaker opponent.

Adelaide and Richmond both performed on the day and won, on their home grounds against weaker opponents. There was no second chance for either of them, NOR SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN,

Your selective quoting means you're missing a number of my points. I was explaining the rationale behind the double chance (and behinds, which you're curiously continuing to ignore) there - they exist to remedy the 'unfairness' of insufficient advantage to high-placing sides. Later in my post, I explicitly noted that I wasn't saying your system isn't "fair" in its own way, just that it doesn't accord with the concept of fairness that behinds and double chances both abide by - namely, one that does sufficient justice to H&A finishing positions, rather than your excessive emphasis on particular kinds of "on the day" performance. Like it or not, there are competing ideals at play here.

Once the ideal is accepted (of giving a more substantive reward to high-finishing teams than simply 'playing at home against a weaker side'), double chances can still be avoided - if QFs were removed from the present system, and 1st/2nd go straight to PFs and 3rd/4th to SFs, then the only change is an increase to 1st/2nd's advantage as against 3rd/4th, for example. But that seems to go too far in prioritising H&A against finals - as I've mentioned, it's a matter of balancing ideals - and the double chance QFs do justice to the multiple ideals in a way that that option doesn't, and in a way that your option doesn't. But you don't seem to be engaging with the substance of my argument...

 

[Blackas87]

Fair enough that's your opinion


Ummm, doesn't that statement conflict with your first statement? If they are a chance at winning the premiership then clearly they are worthy of a finals position.



If they are not good enough, why did you say a "a low finals posiiton is still a chance at winning the premiership"

Which is it? Are they good enough, or are they not??



I happen to think 10 is a good number. A knockout finals 10 played over 4 weeks, is really just a top-6 with a wildcard weekend to sort out who finishes 7th and 8th.

The elimination of double chances is the clincher for me.

Double chances absolutely suck. They totally destroy the entire concept of what finals are about - winning and performing on the day.

The premiership should be won over the whole season. Teams that finish 10th haven't earnt the right for chance at a flag. Why stop at 10 and not 16 teams playing off in finals. Let's have 16 teams in finals having a chance at premiership.

 

[Dan26]

Your selective quoting means you're missing a number of my points. I was explaining the rationale behind the double chance (and behinds, which you're curiously continuing to ignore).

The scoring of "behinds" is irrelevant to the argument, hence I ignore it. This debate is about finals systems.

they exist to remedy the 'unfairness' of insufficient advantage to high-placing sides.

No they don't.

In the 1800's, only goals were scored. Behinds were "noted" but didn't count towards a score. It was then decided to count them towards the score in the 1890's. At any rate, that has nothing to do with finals systems.

Later in my post, I explicitly noted that I wasn't saying your system isn't "fair" in its own way, just that it doesn't accord with the concept of fairness that double chances both abide by - namely, one that does sufficient justice to H&A finishing positions.

I explained this with basic mathematics.

The knockout system DOES accord with the concept of fairness, because it replaces the double chance with a guaranteed week off.

This 100% guaranteed week off is MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL to having a 50% chance of using a double chance, and a 50% chance of getting a week off, which is what we have under the current system.

Once Adelaide beat GWS in week one, they then had a guaranteed week off. They didn't have it guaranteed before the match against GWS. Before the match they only had a 50% chance of having a week off.

But after Adelaide beat GWS, and the week off was guaranteed, the DOUBLE CHANCE DISAPPEARS!!!! Have you noticed that?

That's exactly what happens in the NFL and in my proposed final-10 knockout system. Once your week off is 100% guaranteed, the double chance is not needed, wanted or necessary.

Once the ideal is accepted (of giving a more substantive reward to high-finishing teams than simply 'playing at home against a weaker side'), double chances can still be avoided - if QFs were removed from the present system, and 1st/2nd go straight to PFs and 3rd/4th to SFs, then the only change is an increase to 1st/2nd's advantage as against 3rd/4th, for example. But that seems to go too far in prioritising H&A against finals - as I've mentioned, it's a matter of balancing ideals - and the double chance QFs do justice to the multiple ideals in a way that that option doesn't, and in a way that your option doesn't. But you don't seem to be engaging with the substance of my argument...

I understand what you are saying. The only reason the double chance exists in a final-8 system is because if it was knockout, there would be no "week off's" for any team. The nature of the number 8 means "quarter-finals, semi-finals, Grand Final"

With any other number, the double chance can disappear, and be replaced in total with a 100% guaranteed week off for at least 2 of the teams.

There is no need in a final-6 system for example, for there to be a double chance.

And there is certainly no need in a final-10 system for a double chance.

 

[Dan26]

The premiership should be won over the whole season. Teams that finish 10th haven't earnt the right for chance at a flag. Why stop at 10 and not 16 teams playing off in finals. Let's have 16 teams in finals having a chance at premiership.

No one is proposing 16 teams. You're just being deliberately provocative by providing a stupid exaggeration.

In 1994 the AFL introduced the final-8 in a 15 team league. The run-in to the finals was tremendously exciting, and no one suggested the 8th-placed side (Collingwood in 1994) didn't deserve to be there.

If you think the team that finishes 10th doesn't deserve to be there, then they will lose their first final versus 7th and be eliminated. What are you afraid of? That 10th might go on a winning streak?

If 10th were able, somehow to win four away finals against 7th,1st,2nd and 3rd, then they would be a most deserving premier.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

Make it so only top 4 make finals.

Then have 5th - 8th play off for the two wildcards.

Oh, wait...

 

[Dan26]

Why stop at 10 and not 16 teams playing off in finals. Let's have 16 teams in finals having a chance at premiership.

Because the whole idea of 10 teams in the finals is to ELIMINATE dead rubbers.

Having 16 teams in the finals would create MORE dead rubbers.

Just to clear a few things up.

A final-9 offers the least amount of dead rubbers.

A final-8 and final-10 offer the same amount of dead rubbers.

A final-18 or a final-"1" would both offer the most amount of dead rubbers.



1. NINE TEAMS IN THE FINALS This number of teams promotes the least amount of dead rubbers.

2.EITHER EIGHT OR TEN TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the second least amount of dead rubbers. In a final-8, you may have teams 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 7th ands 8th who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-10 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 11th and 12th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 7th and 8th who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

But you'd give the edge to the final 10 because whlle 7th and 8th might be safely in the finals playing a "dead rubber" (which is the equivalent of 11th and 12th being out of the finals in a final-8 playing a dead rubber) they are still playing to improve their seeding.

So, whilst a final-8 and final-10 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both one away from "nine," the edge goes to the final-10.

3. EITHER SEVEN OR 11 TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the third least amount of dead rubbers. In a final-7, you may have teams 10th 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 6th and 7th who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-11 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 12th 13th and 14th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

A final-7 and final-11 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both two away from the ideal of "nine."

4. EITHER SIX OR 12 TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the fourth least amount of dead rubbers. In a final-6, you may have teams 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 5th and 6th who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-12 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 13th and 14th and 15th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 4th 5th 6th, 7th, 8th 9th who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

A final-6 and final-12 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both three away from the ideal of "nine."


5. EITHER FIVE OR 13 TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the fifth least amount of dead rubbers. In a final-5, you may have teams 7th, 8th, 9th 10th, 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 4th and 5th who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-13 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 14th 15th and 16th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 3rd,4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

A final-5 and final-13 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both four away from the ideal of "nine."

6. EITHER FOUR OR 14 TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the sixth least amount of dead rubbers. In a final-4, you may have teams 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th, 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 3rd and 4th who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-14 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 15th 16th and 17th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th 9th 10th who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

A final-4 and final-14 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both five away from the ideal of "nine."

7. EITHER THREE OR 15 TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the 7th-least amount of dead rubbers. In a final-3, you may have teams 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th, 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 2nd and 3rd who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-15 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 17th and 18th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th 9th 10th 11th who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

A final-3 and final-15 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both six away from the ideal of "nine."

8. EITHER TWO OR 16 TEAMS IN THE FINALS
These two numbers promote the MOST amount of dead rubbers. In a final-2, you may have teams 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th, 11th and 12th who can't make it playing dead rubbers (a negative) but you have teams 1st and 2nd who need win to play finals (a positive)

In a final-16 it's the same thing but the other way around.. You may have teams 17th and 18th who CAN make the finals eliminating dead rubbers (a positive) but you have teams 5th,6th,7th,8th,9th, 10th, 11th, 12th 13th 14th, who are safely in the finals playing a dead rubber (a negative)

A final-2 and final-16 are mathematically the same in the respect of eliminating dead rubbers in that they are both seven away from the ideal of "nine."

 

[Dwhale44]

No need to tinker with the current system but I'm sure the higher ups will have their way to change it in the near future alienating themselves from the fans even more.

 

[hcd199]

The scoring of "behinds" is irrelevant to the argument, hence I ignore it. This debate is about finals systems.

Except I've repeatedly drawn an explicit parallel which is the entire crux of my argument (see my first post in this thread: it's entirely about that). To wilfully ignore it is a failure to sincerely engage with what I'm arguing.

No they don't.

In the 1800's, only goals were scored. Behinds were "noted" but didn't count towards a score. It was then decided to count them towards the score in the 1890's. At any rate, that has nothing to do with finals systems.

Sorry, 'high-placing' is the wrong choice of term for me there (though that's still true for the double chance); the phrase that works for the parallel with behinds is 'more deserving', or 'better'. Behinds being counted towards the score is, at least in part, an attempt to remedy the situation where weaker sides would win by virtue of scoring more goals despite having played substantially worse (back in an era when extremely low scores were common, as were high behind tallies, so such situations were more common). That's highly comparable to the rationale for high-placing teams who've lost a final of some sort getting another chance - 1902 VFL season is probably the first one that showcases that.

I explained this with basic mathematics.

The knockout system DOES accord with the concept of fairness, because it replaces the double chance with a guaranteed week off.

This 100% guaranteed week off is MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL to having a 50% chance of using a double chance, and a 50% chance of getting a week off, which is what we have under the current system.

Once Adelaide beat GWS in week one, they then had a guaranteed week off. They didn't have it guaranteed before the match against GWS. Before the match they only had a 50% chance of having a week off.

But after Adelaide beat GWS, and the week off was guaranteed, the DOUBLE CHANCE DISAPPEARS!!!! Have you noticed that?

That's exactly what happens in the NFL and in my proposed final-10 knockout system. Once your week off is 100% guaranteed, the double chance is not needed, wanted or necessary.

See the final paragraph in my previous post (and, I'm pretty sure, one of my other posts as well) for a pretty clear acknowledgement that teams skipping rounds can be treated as loosely equivalent to playing a second game when losing.

In any case, the part you quoted mentioned behinds also - another comparison, "the concept of fairness that behinds and double chances both abide by", "namely, one that does sufficient justice to H&A finishing positions". Your system's only difference between 1st and 4th is in the difficulty of their opponent; that may be considered 'fair', but it's not the same kind of fairness that motivates the "double chance", because your system is more inclined to prioritise "on the day" performance than H&A finishing position, the latter of which is well-achieved through a double chance.

I understand what you are saying. The only reason the double chance exists in a final-8 system is because if it was knockout, there would be no "week off's" for any team. The nature of the number 8 means "quarter-finals, semi-finals, Grand Final"

With any other number, the double chance can disappear, and be replaced in total with a 100% guaranteed week off for at least 2 of the teams.

There is no need in a final-6 system for example, for there to be a double chance.

And there is certainly no need in a final-10 system for a double chance.

Kind of...? There's no doubt that your final 10 is closer to the ideal of fairness that the double chance works towards than a straight knockout final 8 would be. The advantage to the top sides is still relatively minimal, largely because the top 6 all get the "week off" so the advantage the top teams get against most of the finalists is still just 'playing at home against a weaker side'. Which I guess means an entirely knockout final 6 where the top 2 get a "week off" first up would accord with the concept of fairness behind the double chance and the scoring of behinds, but only because such it effectively operates as two overlapping final threes. (Compare the final 6 used in the 2010 TSL season, which instead included a 'triple chance'; arguably the skew was too much against "on the day" performance with that one, though I still think there's some merit in its 'tiered' approach).

Beyond that particular ideal of fairness, however, I still don't accept your problem with the double chance on a conceptual level. A system whereby finalists are sorted into 'tiers' and rise or fall seems to me to do far greater justice to H&A finishing positions than a knockout system where the primary advantage is your opponent's relative weakness; that is, I still think your proposed system is too skewed towards the "on the day" aspect of finals at the expense of the "overall merit" ideal behind both the counting of behinds towards scores and the use of 'double chances'.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

This is a manifestly unfair system; how is it fair for 3rd and 4th to play each other in a knockout final, whilst 5th and 6th have the other knockout? Could be made fairer by playing 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th as knockouts, with 2nd to play the higher-ranked winner and 1st the lower-ranked one.

I get your point, the idea is to give the advantage to 1st over 2nd, while knowing who will play who the following week. And, IMO, who gets to the second week isn't as important as who plays in the GF. 4th's theoretical path to a flag is still no harder than 5th's, even if their first week is.
But 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th works too. It might make scheduling a little less simple, but that's the only real issue.

 

[TassieEagle]

We need to go with a full on 16 team double elimination finals bracket. with a weekly curtain raiser between 17th and 18th for the number 1 draft pick.

It would have the advantage of more matches so more money for the AFL, plus the possibility of getting a grand final rematch!

 

[doppleganger]

Not sure why people argue with Dan.

He knows the numbers and the probabilities. His suggestions are always on the money.

Wk2 of the AFL finals in the top 8 is a boring snooze fest. We may as well just have the top4 at present.

 

[maskmcgee]

Yes it is.

They get EITHER a week off, or a double chance.

What are you completely blind? How does the WINNER OR THE QF (yes mate try reading somthing for once) - key word WINNER - get a double chance?

 

[Pessimistic]

Top six more appealing no second chances jut a week off for top two

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Oh, * off Dan.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

What's wrong with the top team being eliminated after one loss? Adelaide could have been eliminated after one loss agaisnt Geelong on Friday night. Richmond could have been eliminated after one loss against GWS on Saturday.

It's not "unfair" to be eliminated after one loss, if you have a home match against 8th in your first final. You have been gifted a home final against the worst team in the finals (and in the case of a final-10 you'd have a week off in addition)

If you can't beat 8th (who played the week before) on your home ground, after you've had a week off, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

It's not "unfair" to be eliminated if you don't perform on the day against a weaker opponent.

Agree or disagree with the rationale, respect the thought behind it.

Personally I believe there should be a reward for finishing high on the ladder, as teams have done right back to the top five with ladder leaders having week one off (and a double chance on top). I also believe this advantage should be more than playing a lower ranked team at home.

Understand the point regarding the current system however around actual advantages and double chance vs week off (not both). If results go to ladder position in week one 1st beat 4th, 2nd beat 3rd....if results in week two go according to ladder position, theory of double chance evaporates in week three for 1st and 2nd. If 1st now lose to 3rd, they’re gone. Where 3rd got a second crack for losing two weeks earlier.

 

[Daniel Flynn]

Why should it be changed other than to give two teams that weren't good enough to make the top eight another chance? If my memories correct this surfaced a couple of years ago after Collingwood finished ninth and Eddie was... well Eddie

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

We should have a final 6, IMO. Screw the wildcard idea.

Historically places 7th and 8th are making up the numbers each and every year, so there's no point having 9th and 10th involved.

Each and every year? Except......last year....

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Each and every year? Except......last year....

Does it really need to be outlined that it was an anomaly?

 

[Dan26]

Agree or disagree with the rationale, respect the thought behind it.

Personally I believe there should be a reward for finishing high on the ladder, as teams have done right back to the top five with ladder leaders having week one off (and a double chance on top). I also believe this advantage should be more than playing a lower ranked team at home.

Understand the point regarding the current system however around actual advantages and double chance vs week off (not both). If results go to ladder position in week one 1st beat 4th, 2nd beat 3rd....if results in week two go according to ladder position, theory of double chance evaporates in week three for 1st and 2nd. If 1st now lose to 3rd, they’re gone. Where 3rd got a second crack for losing two weeks earlier.

Exactly.

If Geelong had beaten Adelaide in the Preliminary Final, they would have advanced to the Grand Final after receiving a second chance for losing after finishing 3rd, whilst Adelaide - who finished 1st - would have been out after one loss.

I can't see a better system than the knockout final-10.

Even the argument of 9th and 10th not deserving a spot hardly applies. The top-6 all get a week off, while all the 7v10 and 8v9 matches do is determine who finishes 7th and 8th.

The seedings worsk better - the highest seeded team ALWAYS plays the lowest seeded team.

There is a clear advantage with the week off for 1st and 2nd who both play a low ranked team at home who had to play the week before.

Whilst it's true that 3,4,5,6 all have a week off, there is no advantage, because those teams play each other, so it is clearly better to be either 1st or 2nd.

Lets see how it would have played out this year.


1 ADELAIDE 15 6 1 ..........136%
2 GEELONG 15 6 1...........117.4%
3 RICHMOND 15 7..............118.3%
4 GWS 14 6 2 .....................114.8
5 PORT ADELAIDE 14 8.....129.7%
6 SYDNEY 14 8............. .....126.8%
7 ESSENDON 12 10...........106.5%
8 WEST COAST 12 10.........105.7%
9 MELBOURNE 12 10..........105.2%
10 BULLDOGS 11 11 .............97.1%
11 ST KILDA 11 11................96.9%
12 HAWTHORN 10 11 1........90.7%
13 COLLINGWOOD 9 12 1.... 99%
14 FREMANTLE 8 14..............74.4%
15 NTH MELB 6 16 .................87.6%
16 CARLTON 6 16...................78.2%
17 GOLD COAST 6 16............76%
18 BRISBANE 5 17................ 74.3%


WEEK 1
West Coast (8th) vs Melbourne (9th)
Essendon (7th) vs W.Buldogs (10th)

WEEK 2
Adelaide (1st) vs West Coast (8th)
Geelong (2nd) vs Essendon (7th)
Richmond (3rd) vs Sydney (6th)
GWS (4th) vs Port.Adel (5th)

WEEK 3
Adelaide (1st) vs GWS (4th)
Geelong (2nd) vs Richmond (3rd)

WEEK 4
Adelaide (1st) vs Richmond (3rd)



Cant see any flaws. Even the matches between 7,8,9,10 only serve to eliminate two teams and get it back to 8 teams anyway

 

[Dan26]

What are you completely blind? How does the WINNER OR THE QF (yes mate try reading somthing for once) - key word WINNER - get a double chance?

They don't

Which is what I've been saying.

DUH!

 

[kaiserchief13]

They will never use your crappy idea no matter how many times you repeat it.

It's a good idea TBH. I prefer it over the current format. More knockout games = better

 

[Aramis]

The whole fixture needs to be revised

Play everyone once , then have a wild card weekend for teams 5-12 before the finals commence !!

So more or less 12 teams make finals now??? No, you make the 8 in the season or tough luck.... Sick of this nonsense, leave the f****** thing alone.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Copy whatever America does, right?