The best possible finals system

[halalsnackpack]

The McIntyre final 8 is good in the sense that each position has an incremental advantage over the position below it. In the current system there is theoretically no difference between 1st and 2nd if all results go to plan. There are obviously some significant issues with the McIntyre 8 system which are removed by the current format

 

[footyfan1978]

The McIntyre final 8 is good......There are obviously some significant issues with the McIntyre 8 system which are removed by the current format

rofl

 

[beta_condition]

I've always felt 1v3 2v4 5v7 6v8 is a better setup than the current system. Second, Fourth and Sixth benefit alot more from that fixturing and the only club which loses out is Fifth which plays higher ranked teams in the first two weeks but still an advantage over finishing Sixth (assuming they win the first). First has a slightly tougher fixture first week playing Third instead of Fourth, if they lose they play the same team in week two so not much change(assuming highest position wins the other games) but if they win they get an easier Preliminary Final than the current system.

 

[2006_Eagles]

1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

1v4
2v3

1v2

I think this

 

[kickazz]

Come up with a system for each of a varying number of finalists.

Set a minimum number of premiership points that sees you "in". Let's say 46.

So this year, it's a very unusualunusua twelve. Other years this century:

2017 nine
2016 nine
2015 ten
2014 eight
2013 seven* (eight if incl Essendon)
2012 nine
2011 eight
2010 seven
2009 seven
2008 nine
2007 nine
2006 eight
2005 eight
2004 eight
2003 ten
2002 seven
2001 eight

 

[Roobs321]

The modern top 8 has sort of become the new top 6 (as espoused in the decade old OP). I could understand the argument back then, when 8th was a flag no-hoper, but nowadays given the expansion impact has settled, we have 44.4% making finals, and they are generally worthy of inclusion. Even North 2016 had started the year 9-0 (finals-worthy in any year).

Maybe if we get some more 20-2 style minor premiers the threshold could drop back to an 11-11 from time to time, but generally you need 13-9 to guarantee your place given the competitive nature of the comp.

 

[HTT]

I think the fairest first week of finals is the previous:

QF1: 4v5
QF2: 3v6
QF3: 2v7
QF4: 1v8

Especially considering the finals rankings are based on unbalanced schedules and positions are often decided on %ages.

Of course the unbalance schedule, where no two teams play the same schedule but its all shown on a single table, as if they did, is the bigger issue. It is the only real reason for including more teams in any finals series, but I'm not a fan of adding any more teams, because there are better ways to minimise that issue.

What happens after week 1 though?
That system was bloody ridiculous. So many stupid fixtures result.

The current finals system is fine. I'd argue the only issue is that TOO often losers of QFs win the semi and lose the prelim, so the two QFs basically act as semi finals, but since we can't drop the number of teams that qualify, that's fine. I don't think anyone's won the flag who hasn't earnt it in this system.

 

[HTT]

I've always felt 1v3 2v4 5v7 6v8 is a better setup than the current system. Second, Fourth and Sixth benefit alot more from that fixturing and the only club which loses out is Fifth which plays higher ranked teams in the first two weeks but still an advantage over finishing Sixth (assuming they win the first). First has a slightly tougher fixture first week playing Third instead of Fourth, if they lose they play the same team in week two so not much change(assuming highest position wins the other games) but if they win they get an easier Preliminary Final than the current system.

Don't mind this. If results go to plan in the current system, 1st gets the tougher prelim, while in this, 1st gets the tougher QF. In general I'd prefer to cop the tougher game when I still have a double chance, which your system does. It's a very minor difference though.

 

[dylan93]

Top 8 just works too perfectly. Think it'll be around for a while to come. Especially considering we only have around 13 teams playing competitive footy.

 

[basashi]

I've always felt 1v3 2v4 5v7 6v8 is a better setup than the current system. Second, Fourth and Sixth benefit alot more from that fixturing and the only club which loses out is Fifth which plays higher ranked teams in the first two weeks but still an advantage over finishing Sixth (assuming they win the first). First has a slightly tougher fixture first week playing Third instead of Fourth, if they lose they play the same team in week two so not much change(assuming highest position wins the other games) but if they win they get an easier Preliminary Final than the current system.

Under this model it would be slightly better to finish second than first though wouldn't it?

 

[beta_condition]

Under this model it would be slightly better to finish second than first though wouldn't it?

Not a massive difference tougher qualifying final but easier preliminary final which I'd rather.

 

[Dazzler9]

Come on Alberton_Magpie , I've been hitting refresh for ten years now. Hurry up would ya!

 

[Hoops]

With a more fair 17 round season we should extend the finals to an eight round top 16, meaning only one week less to the season but with more meaningful games towards the back end. I sure the TV execs would prefer 24 high impact games to the multiple dead rubbers we currently have.
My proposed system which is basically an extension of the current top 8 rewards those up the top of the ladder and has two teams drop out each week. I had a similar idea in another thread but have adjusted it so that double up games, ie teams playing each other multiple times through the finals series, is less likely. But it does look messier when you put it down on paper.

Here are the guarantees for this finals system.

As you can see the higher up the greater the reward. You can determine what week of the finals you make it to with just ladder position and wins.

Edit

Although some drops look dramatic you only drop one chance when you lose.

 

[Billy ray]

With a more fair 17 round season we should extend the finals to an eight round top 16, meaning only one week less to the season but with more meaningful games towards the back end. I sure the TV execs would prefer 24 high impact games to the multiple dead rubbers we currently have.
My proposed system which is basically an extension of the current top 8 rewards those up the top of the ladder and has two teams drop out each week. I had a similar idea in another thread but have adjusted it so that double up games, ie teams playing each other multiple times through the finals series, is less likely and can't occur more than twice including the Grand Final. But it does look messier when you put it down on paper.

Here are the guarantees for this finals system.
View attachment 554338
As you can see the higher up the greater the reward. You can determine what week of the finals you make it to with just ladder position and wins.

View attachment 554341

The reason I have colour coded into two groups (grey and white) is to show that when you lose you go to the other group (or out) to minimise the doubling up of games, you also drop one chance even though the drop from grey to white looks quite dramatic.

Can you repeat the diagram with the finishing position included in the rectangle so you can see ata glance where you go if you say were 4th on ladder?

 

[Hoops]

I

Can you repeat the diagram with the finishing position included in the rectangle so you can see ata glance where you go if you say were 4th on ladder?

if you go out in week one you would finish 15th - 16th, week 2 = 13th-14th etc. based on your H&A ladder position. For a team that finishes 4th the lowest you could end up would be going out in the 4th week and finishing 9th or even 10th if the other team eliminated is 1st to 3rd

 

[Billy ray]

I

if you go out in week one you would finish 15th - 16th, week 2 = 13th-14th etc. based on your H&A ladder position. For a team that finishes 4th the lowest you could end up would be going out in the 4th week and finishing 9th or even 10th if the other team eliminated is 1st to 3rd

sorry, I meant your starting position (where you finished the home and away ladder)

 

[melanChronic]

With a more fair 17 round season we should extend the finals to an eight round top 16, meaning only one week less to the season but with more meaningful games towards the back end. I sure the TV execs would prefer 24 high impact games to the multiple dead rubbers we currently have.
My proposed system which is basically an extension of the current top 8 rewards those up the top of the ladder and has two teams drop out each week. I had a similar idea in another thread but have adjusted it so that double up games, ie teams playing each other multiple times through the finals series, is less likely. But it does look messier when you put it down on paper.

Here are the guarantees for this finals system.
View attachment 554338
As you can see the higher up the greater the reward. You can determine what week of the finals you make it to with just ladder position and wins.

Edit View attachment 554360

Although some drops look dramatic you only drop one chance when you lose.

That's actually pretty cool, but would require clubs and fans (particularly) to change their perspective on what the regular season and finals are.

The regular season would essentially be a qualifying period for seeding in this two month long FA-cup style tournament but with multiple chances for the higher ranked clubs. I like it.

- For two months you would have either matches between top clubs (with lots at stake), or cutthroat elimination finals between lower ranked clubs.
- It adds prestige to winning the minor premiership (reg season is fair draw)
- could have ridiculously unlikely fairytale runs from struggling clubs (a la FA cup)
-Still get the high-stakes "one day in September" romanticism
- The spooners (and second last) have the added ignominy of sitting out for 2 months (perhaps their fans would be thankful though).

Can't see it happening whilst we are mired in smalltime Vic league thinking which clings to a "traditional" 22-round season and "elite" finalists only.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Oh wow.
Its not even off season yet.

In general, the fairest system is the 1v8, 2v7 etc knockout system, but I can understand why we don't use it. (A lot riding on individual games that can be influenced by weather etc, take out the double chance for top 4 teams.)

The current system is pretty reasonable - and better than all other suggestions I have seen.
The only problem with this system, IMO, is that, if results go as planned, 1st place (vs 3rd) will have a harder prelim than 2nd place (vs 4th). Ideally 1st would play the easier team in both the QF and the Prelim, but you don't really want them playing the same opponent (4th place) in both games.
You could go to all clubs, in the off season, a choice to decide on changing the QF's to 1v3, 2v4 (to give them am easier prelim) - but I doubt clubs will go for that - I think they would rather stick with the easier QF and have the better chance for a week off and the prelim.

 

[Dazzler9]

I've long held the view that the top sides deserve a double chance that lasts beyond the first week of finals (as used to be the case in the old top 5). Currently, the double chance only applies to week 1. Win that, and a team heads straight to a sudden death prelim. No more double chance.

In the interests of fairness I would advocate that the team who qualifies directly to the prelim gets a double chance if they lose. The team that plays them faces sudden death, but if they win, they have to saddle up again next week and do it again a second time (possibly on their home ground this time).

This would necessitate a 5 week finals system, with the possibility that the 4th week is effectively a bye week (if the two teams who qualify directly to the prelims both win their prelim).

 

[RAPPA]

I've long held the view that the top sides deserve a double chance that lasts beyond the first week of finals (as used to be the case in the old top 5). Currently, the double chance only applies to week 1. Win that, and a team heads straight to a sudden death prelim. No more double chance.

In the interests of fairness I would advocate that the team who qualifies directly to the prelim gets a double chance if they lose. The team that plays them faces sudden death, but if they win, they have to saddle up again next week and do it again a second time (possibly on their home ground this time).

This would necessitate a 5 week finals system, with the possibility that the 4th week is effectively a bye week (if the two teams who qualify directly to the prelims both win their prelim).

The stakes are high in a finals system. Double chance in the first week is already a significant reward - lose and you get a home semi final; win and you bypass a final and move straight to a home prelim. The issue imo is the bye before the finals

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I've long held the view that the top sides deserve a double chance that lasts beyond the first week of finals (as used to be the case in the old top 5). Currently, the double chance only applies to week 1. Win that, and a team heads straight to a sudden death prelim. No more double chance.

In the interests of fairness I would advocate that the team who qualifies directly to the prelim gets a double chance if they lose. The team that plays them faces sudden death, but if they win, they have to saddle up again next week and do it again a second time (possibly on their home ground this time).

This would necessitate a 5 week finals system, with the possibility that the 4th week is effectively a bye week (if the two teams who qualify directly to the prelims both win their prelim).

You've already got the added advantage of the extra week of rest, and playing against a team coming off another hard final (and often an extra week of travel). The opposition team shouldn't be forced to beat you twice in a row to get to the granny. (Would it then go to a 3-game series if you split it 1-1?)
(Also - I don't think fixturing for the GF would work if you have to book 2 seperate dates every year).

 

[Dazzler9]

You've already got the added advantage of the extra week of rest, and playing against a team coming off another hard final (and often an extra week of travel). The opposition team shouldn't be forced to beat you twice in a row to get to the granny. (Would it then go to a 3-game series if you split it 1-1?)
(Also - I don't think fixturing for the GF would work if you have to book 2 seperate dates every year).

No. The team who qualifies directly to the prelim only needs one win.

I didn't think it would be a popular idea. Maybe I'm just old school and like the idea of the teams who have finished higher having a double chance that lasts longer than just the first week of finals. I think they've earned it.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Everyone plays everyone home and away and the top 2 play off for the flag if there is less than two wins between them

And Carlton st kids and western bulldogs and Melbourne forced to merge or relegated

 

[HairyO]

Final 6 in a 14 team comp where every team plays every other team twice in a year.

That is the best system.

 

[Run n Spread]

One we have now is fine. Maybe switch to 1v 3 2v4 5 v 7 6v 8 etc but otherwise it is the fairest possible.

Doesn't anyone remember the farce that was McIntrye? And a top 5/6 doesn't work in an 18 team comp.