The Final 6 Theory.

  • Thread starter Wayne 'loser' Jackson
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None

Remove this Banner Ad

W

Wayne 'loser' Jackson

Guest
I've come up with a final 6 system. It is unfair to some but it is the best I could do.

Let's have a practice run.

WEEK 1: QF.
5 v 6. Let's assume 5 wins. 6 bows out.
3 v 4. Let's say 4 wins. 3 has another chance.
1 and 2 have week off.

WEEK 2: SF.
1 v 4. Let's assume that 1 wins. 4 has another chance.
2 v 5. Say 2 wins. 5 is out of it.
3 has week off.

WEEK 3: PF.
2 v 4. 2 wins but 4 bows out as they lose.
1 v 3. 1 wins but 3 bows out as they lose.

WEEK 4: GF.
1v2. Winner gets the premiership!!

Now some notes.
* At no stage in the draw does 1 play 2, except maybe in the grand final.
* 1 and 2 get first week off.
* It's sudden death for 5 and 6 in the first week.
*Team 1 doesn't have a huge advantage over the rest of the teams.
* Teams 5 and 6 have it harder than 1,2, 3 and 4 to make it fairer.

Does anyone like it?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

WEEK 1
BYE - 1st and 2nd
1EF - 3rd v 6th
2EF - 4th v 5th

WEEK 2

1SF - Winner 1EF v Winner 2EF (higher ranked side hosts, if applicable)
2SF - 1st v 2nd

WEEK 3
PF - Loser 2SF v Winner 1SF

WEEK 4
GF - Winner 2SF v Winner PF

AFL probably should have gone with this in 1991-4.
 
Last edited:
WEEK 1
BYE - 1st and 2nd
1EF - 3rd v 6th
2EF - 4th v 5th

WEEK 2

1SF - Winner 1EF v Winner 2EF (higher ranked side hosts)
2SF - 1st v 2nd

WEEK 3
PF - Loser 2SF v Winner 1SF

WEEK 4
GF - Winner 2SF v Winner PF

AFL probably should have gone with this in 1991-4.
I remember using that very system when playing in juniors. Seemed to work fine.
 
I remember using that very system when playing in juniors. Seemed to work fine.

Only negative I see with it is that it perhaps puts too much emphasis on the Top 2 to make the GF.
GF is going to be 1st v 2nd unless there is an upset in the PF by a side winning their third straight cut throat final... a tough ask.

With the Final 5, the Qualifying Final in Week 1 allows for this emphasis to be placed on the Top 3.
3rd has a much stronger chance to break up the so called status quo of a 1st v 2nd GF.

Still, this Final 6 would have been better than the anomaly ridden Final 6 systems the AFL came up with in the early 90s.
 
Only negative I see with it is that it perhaps puts too much emphasis on the Top 2 to make the GF.
GF is going to be 1st v 2nd unless there is an upset in the PF by a side winning their third straight cut throat final... a tough ask.

With the Final 5, the Qualifying Final in Week 1 allows for this emphasis to be placed on the Top 3.
3rd has a much stronger chance to break up the so called status quo of a 1st v 2nd GF.

Still, this Final 6 would have been better than the anomaly ridden Final 6 systems the AFL came up with in the early 90s.

Upsets in the PF in juniors using this system used to happen all the time. Not sure if they still use it.
 
Only negative I see with it is that it perhaps puts too much emphasis on the Top 2 to make the GF.
GF is going to be 1st v 2nd unless there is an upset in the PF by a side winning their third straight cut throat final... a tough ask.

With the Final 5, the Qualifying Final in Week 1 allows for this emphasis to be placed on the Top 3.
3rd has a much stronger chance to break up the so called status quo of a 1st v 2nd GF.

Still, this Final 6 would have been better than the anomaly ridden Final 6 systems the AFL came up with in the early 90s.
The old final 5 system remains my favourite finals system. Week off for finishing on top, plus 2nd and 3rd have double chances and a real shot at the flag. Was perfect when we had a 12 team comp.
 
WEEK 1
BYE - 1st and 2nd
1EF - 3rd v 6th
2EF - 4th v 5th

WEEK 2

1SF - Winner 1EF v Winner 2EF (higher ranked side hosts, if applicable)
2SF - 1st v 2nd

WEEK 3
PF - Loser 2SF v Winner 1SF

WEEK 4
GF - Winner 2SF v Winner PF

AFL probably should have gone with this in 1991-4.
A system I've seen used in juniors which is very similar has the same first week, but less emphasis on needing to finish 1 and 2 by making them play cut throat finals immediately in the second week against the two week 1 winners. The winners of these matches then playoff in GF. However, it does lack a 4th week.
 
I've come up with a final 6 system. It is unfair to some but it is the best I could do.

Let's have a practice run.

WEEK 1: QF.
5 v 6. Let's assume 5 wins. 6 bows out.
3 v 4. Let's say 4 wins. 3 has another chance.
1 and 2 have week off.

WEEK 2: SF.
1 v 4. Let's assume that 1 wins. 4 has another chance.
2 v 5. Say 2 wins. 5 is out of it.
3 has week off.

WEEK 3: PF.
2 v 4. 2 wins but 4 bows out as they lose.
1 v 3. 1 wins but 3 bows out as they lose.

WEEK 4: GF.
1v2. Winner gets the premiership!!

Now some notes.
* At no stage in the draw does 1 play 2, except maybe in the grand final.
* 1 and 2 get first week off.
* It's sudden death for 5 and 6 in the first week.
*Team 1 doesn't have a huge advantage over the rest of the teams.
* Teams 5 and 6 have it harder than 1,2, 3 and 4 to make it fairer.

Does anyone like it?
I'll be honest Wayne 'loser' Jackson- I think a 5 year old could come up with a better system than this.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What? How does the OP have zero posts? I know I read the initial post in the thread. Good it was, too!!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Final 6 Theory.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top