The Finals System

[Amber Guzzler]

It's true that the calculations assume all matches are 50-50.

So, if Collingwood mathematiclaly has an 18.75% chance of winning the flag, it is a mathematical fact that on Qualifying Final day they are playing to increase or decrease their chances by only 6.25%

If they win the QF, their chances will go up 6.25%, and if they lose it will go down by 6.25%. Hardly anything.

But yes, not all matches are 50-50. Lets suppose that upon winning the Qualifying Final, the week off means Collingwood are a 70% chance of winning the Prelim (lets still say the GF is 50%). This means their chances of winning the flag are 35% (0.70 x 0.50)

And if Collingwood lose the QF, their chance of winning the semi-final is 80% (the loser of the QF nearly always wins the Semi-Final), and in that sceanrio lets say they then have a 40% chance of winning the Prelim Final because they'd be playing a team with a weeks rest. And the Grand Final is 50-50. So if they lose the Qualifying Final their chances of winning the flag would be 16% (0.8 x 0.4 x 0.5)

So using these new calculations, Collingwood's 18.75% chance can increase to 35% if they win the Qualifying Final, but it decreases to only 16% if they lose the Qualifying Final.

So, if they lose the Qualifying Final their chances drop from 18.75% to 16%... hardly anything. That is based on the fact that if they lose the QF, they are almost certain to win the next week (I've said 80% certain.)

So, really, if you lose the Qualifying Final, you are hardly any worse off than what you were at the start of the finals series.

That's why the OUTCOME of losing in a double chance final is not exciting at all. The match itself is exciting. The contest is exciting. The prospect of two great teams head-to-head is exciting. But the actual outcome itself is not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The public's favourite matches are the Grand Final and Preliminary Finals because the season is on the line. These matches represent the true ideology of what finals are about - performing on the day.

Hmmm... All this irrelevant talk of probability. The results over the last 10 years clearly show that there's a flaw in your calculations. Consider this: You know that a when you toss a coin, it's a 50/50 chance of being heads/tails (well, close enough). However, if you toss a particular coin X number of times, and always get a ratio of say 70/30 for heads, regardless of how many times you toss it, you'll sooner or later come to the realisation that the coin isn't balanced, and is weighted such that head has an advantage over tails.

It's the same with finals matches. All your calculations are based on the fact that 2 teams playing a particular finals match both have a 50/50 chance of winning that match, yet the results over the last 10 years suggest that this is not the case at all. Out of the 20 Qualifying finals played under the current system, 15 of them have been won by the top 2 teams, and only 5 have been won by teams 3 and 4. You theory doesn't fit the results.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So, are you suggesting that if we introduce divisions, the knockout system would "work well for us"

Not at all. In our sport the best way to fix the uneven fixture is to introduce a rolling draw. We don't need divisions and conferences. In the NFL not all teams play each other each year due to the amount of sides and some teams can go a few years without playing another side.

 

[Roby]

That's not what I quoted. I only quoted 2 paragraphs of it. I was only agreeing with the 2 paragraphs that I quoted. Here they are again for you:



I agree 100% with what he posted there.



No. Read the section of Dan's post that I quoted again. Where does it make any mention of not wanting double chances at all?

It only mentions that the current system is a farce.

And again, that's what I was agreeing with.



Once again, read the section of Dan's post that I quoted you moron. Where does it make any mention of wanting 10 teams?



That's ok - I'm backing away from the person who clearly has reading difficulties.

This is what you agreed to.

Originally Posted by Dan26
Last year 3rd and 4th received a double chance, then both those teams had the opportunity to beat 1st and 2nd in preliminary Finals, and if they did beat them, 1st and 2nd would have been out after one loss, while 3rd and 4th would have received a second chance. Ridiculous. And Indefensible.

The whole concept of allowing double chances just for the first final, but not for the second final that the top team plays is depely flawed...

Then you said you wanted the double chance.

 

[gPhonque]

This is what you agreed to.



Then you said you wanted the double chance.

Yes, I do want double chances!!!

Oh God you're so dumb....

I want guaranteed double chances as we used to have under the Final 5.

Not these pretend double chances that you can only use in the first week that we have in the current Final 8 system. (and as Dan was describing in the part of his post that I quoted!)

Do you understand yet, or is this still too complicated for you?

 

[Roby]

Yes, I do want double chances!!!

Oh God you're so dumb....

I want guaranteed double chances as we used to have under the Final 5.

Not these pretend double chances that you can only use in the first week that we have in the current Final 8 system. (and as Dan was describing in the part of his post that I quoted!)

Do you understand yet, or is this still too complicated for you?

But Dan26 has stipulated at ad-nausea he doesn't want a double chance in what ever form... You sir are dumb.

 

[gPhonque]

But Dan26 has stipulated at ad-nausea he doesn't want a double chance in what ever form... You sir are dumb.

Oh god...

You're going around in circles now.

This is what I told you a page or so ago:

I was only agreeing with the 2 paragraphs that I quoted.

 

[doppleganger]

The current final system simply places a huge gap between 4 and 5.

The benefit/advantage given to the top team in comparison to 4th is minimal, and similar can be said in the difference between 5th and 8th.

That is the most puzzling aspect.

Under everybody's favourite system - The FINAL 5 - 1st had a clear advantage over second, second had a minor advantage over third, third had a clear advantage over fourth, and fourth had a minor advantage over 5th.

The best system moving forward would be to make it a final 10 that simply duplicates the old final 5.

Regarding the debate re QF & PF.....the problem I have with them is how the loses are treated. As 90% of the time it is the same 4 contesting both the QF and PFs.

In week one (QF) 3rd can lose.....but then lives to fight another day.
In week three (PF) 1st can lose......but is out.

Why does the team finishing 3rd get a double chance, ie lost a final but not eliminated........yet the team that came first doesn't get the same advantage??

The old final 5 system ensured that 1,2 and 3 all actually received a double chance.

People mistakenly think 1,2,3 and 4 all get a double chance under the current system.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

But Dan26 has stipulated at ad-nausea he doesn't want a double chance in what ever form... You sir are dumb.

My God, and you question my intelligence? It's pretty obvious that gPhonque is only agreeing with a small portion of Dan's argument, that it's flawed to have a double chance in 1 round, but not another. While Dan is using this to argue that there should be no double chances at all, gPhonque is arguing that a top 4 team shouldn't lose the double chance simply because they win their first game.

You sir, are the last person who should be calling anyone dumb.

 

[gPhonque]

Thankyou Amber Guzzler.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Under everybody's favourite system - The FINAL 5 - 1st had a clear advantage over second, second had a minor advantage over third, third had a clear advantage over fourth, and fourth had a minor advantage over 5th..

Actually, there was (virtually) no advantage for 2nd over 3rd and 4th over 5th, since the Final 5 was played back when all finals were to take place in Melbourne (MCG or Waverley).

Had West Coast finished 2nd in 1990 after the Home and Away season, we still would have played Collingwood in Melbourne (Waverley). Its debateable whether the VFL/AFL would have had a final out of Victoria if say the Eagles and Bears had met in a lead up final in 1990. The MCG contract regarding a final to take place there every week, didn't kick in until 1992. Non-Vic finals didn't start until 1991 when the AFL expanded the final series to 6 teams and wanted to avoid a night final if they could (only in Week 1, finals in Weeks 2 and 3 were allowed from 1994 with the introduction of the Final 8).