The Finals System

[Mr Meeseeks]

So what?

What is this obsession people have with wanting to keep every game "meaningful?" I mean, if that's all people want, then let's not play the H&A series at all, and just play finals so that every game "means something."

There are always going to be teams who can't make the finals. It's just how sporting competitions work. The idea is for those teams to improve and try to do better next year.

Not an obsession with keeping every game meaningful, just trying to avoid making more than half the games in the latter parts dead rubbers!

This league is about entertainment, how is more than half the games being dead rubbers entertaining? Especially when the next big thing is waiting for pick number 1 at seasons end.

An 18 team comp with a top 5 with every Melbourne final at the MCG would result in epic finals football IMHO.

Anything else.....FARCICAL!!!!

Sure, 6 finals over 4 weeks. Thats epic.

Quit living in the past. There will be 18 teams soon, not 12.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

And for those arguing that if you have less teams in the finals there will be too many dead rubbers consider this. Under the new system in the Semi-Finals, the losers from the first week have almost a 100% winning record in the second week. In other words - the result of those games are virtually pre-determined - farcical!!!

And if you think a few dead rubbers at the end of the season is going to severly hurt the game then our game is in serious trouble. The NFL has only 12 of 30 teams make the finals and it is the world's premier sporting league even though half the teams are out of the running by virtually halfway through the season. The same applies to Major Leauge Baseball. If you think tanking is a problem than rorting the finals system to solve it is the ultimate theory of the second best - fix the draft then you muppets!

The drafrt doesnt need fixing, it is what makes our game fantastic. The cyclical nature of teams up the top then down the bottom is excellent and something the AFL should be proud of. I know it is easier to fly off the handle, but rather than just calling everyone a muppet, how about coming up with a solution...

Nobody is talking of 'rorting' the finals, just keeping participation in proportion to the number of teams in the league, as it always has.

Our game is not in serious trouble, because we have a good finals system with a proportionate number of teams participating. It would struggle if we had 5 dead rubber a week for the last 6 weeks. Saying ti wouldn't is just plonking your head in the sand.

Also, comparing our game with situations in the states is ridiculous and a last resort. The money in their games makes ours look like chickenfeed, its a completely different scenario.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Look, in a way, neither do I. If I team can't perform at the end, then perhaps they don't deserve to be there.... etc etc... I understand your argument.

This is it for me. The H&A season is about qualifying for the finals. The finals is a different ball game and you need to peform to win, not just get a free ride because you had a good H&A.

The lopsided draw is not considered in the finals. Under your proposal, PortAdelaide should have two more flags earlier this decade, but they didn't because Brisbane played a superior september nad Port Adelaide didnt have the mettle to take it to the next level.

But at the same time, I also believe that it's important that the H&A rounds should have a significant affect on the finals.

The Final 8 system does not do this, as I've shown.

This is where I strongly disagree.

The higher you finish, the easier your run home is, I think right now it is fair, especially considering that a team could benefit from a great draw.

But we're going around in circles! The AFL will never go back to a final 5 anyway, just not enough $$$$.

 

[Rise_up_Stiffy]

Make it a top 5 (1st gets a week off etc)

6th gets the first draft pick, 7th the second etc. More incentive to finish up top.

If a team finishes in the bottom 4 three years in a row, they get a priority pick (1st overall).

Thoughts?

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

As for 06, Adelaide finished 2nd and were denied the double chance.

Adelaide got a Prelim against a travelling team after a weeks break.

Sorry but if they cant win that, they dont deserve to be in the Grand Final.

EDIT - already been responded to..

Ok, but to use your same logic, surely then, if West Coast couldn't beat Sydney at home in the first week, then they didn't deserve to be there either?

Adelaide got their advantage for finishing 2nd. A week off and straight to the Prelim.

WC used their advantage for finishing top, a double chance then a home game.

You're twisting words to suit your argument.

 

[gPhonque]

Adelaide got a Prelim against a travelling team after a weeks break.

A traveling team that team just happened to win the minor premiership.

Adelaide got their advantage for finishing 2nd. A week off and straight to the Prelim....

... against the team that finished 1st on the ladder!

Great advantage there.

So they do nothing wrong, finish 2nd on the ladder, win their first final.... and their "advantage" is to play the team that finished 1st in a sudden death final?

Ok, whatever you reckon.

WC used their advantage for finishing top, a double chance then a home game.

I've got no problems with West Coast..

You're twisting words to suit your argument.

No, you're just an idiot who can't read, but we all know that anyway.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

A traveling team that team just happened to win the minor premiership.



... against the team that finished 1st on the ladder!

That team lost to fourth. So arguably were not as strong as they seemed, perhaps due to the lopsided draw? I know they went on to win the flag, but you cant predict upsets.

Adelaide still had a week off and a home ground advantage. If they were genuine chances for the flag, that should of been enough.

So they do nothing wrong, finish 2nd on the ladder, win their first final.... and their "advantage" is to play the team that finished 1st in a sudden death final?

Ok, whatever you reckon.

No. Their adavantage was having a home Prelim and a week off.

No, you're just an idiot who can't read, but we all know that anyway.

Is there any need for that? Clearly I can read. Its not difficult to hold a discussion without trying to insult the people who disagree with you.

 

[vealesy]

Sorry, but the double chance has ALWAYS meant that you were guaranteed the chance to lose a game before the Grand Final.

Top teams don't have that chance anymore.

Therefore, they don't have a double chance.

Your definition of "double chance" is completely inconsistent with what it has meant throughout the history of our game. You do realise that, don't you?

Im busy right now but I hope to read the rest of this, from you've said right here you sound like an old traditionalist conservative.

You need to learn to move on in your life.

Who cares if its technically not a double chance, its a free week to rest/train do whatever the club deems best, to win a prelim against a team who has had to slog it out that week. Its a fairly big advantage going into a prelim.

You sound like some form of elitist dinosaur, who can't comprehend the fact that most fans WANT a fair competition, for more exciting and meaningful games.

This advantage is given to TWO teams at the top of the ladder after the first part of the season, but the finals are where a premiership is won.

I do not believe there should be any advantage given to any one team, only shared advantages, so that all excuses, all reasons, all debate, rests solely on the TWO top teams performance in the GRAND FINAL.

The Grand Final is the peak, the Premiership the apex.

Do you understand why ONE team should not be advantaged throughout the finals.

We want both teams to enter the game with the same preparation!

If you are advocating a finals system, where the team that finishes on top of the ladder gets such an easy run into the Grand Final, you may as well be advocating for the removal of a finals series altogether.

We want EQUALITY up to the very purest moment of the challenge. The big contest, The Grand Final.

 

[FootyJunkie]

I actually really love the current finals system, I think its a really good way to sort out a premiership team.

The problem is that with 20 teams going for eight spots there are going to be a hell of a lot of meaningless games in the second half of the year when many of the bottom 12 cant make it.

If the league expanded to 20, the AFL will go with a Top 10, no doubt about it.

Until that happens, please stick with a Final 8/9.

 

[iluvparis]

If you are advocating a finals system, where the team that finishes on top of the ladder gets such an easy run into the Grand Final, you may as well be advocating for the removal of a finals series altogether.

Really - I mean its not like that was how the finals system USED to work for the preceding 100 years of the game.

 

[Roby]

Less crowds, less interest in games. The game will go backwards. Regardless of the priority picks, if there is a plethora of teams who do can't make the finals, will end up having many non-event games every year which nobody watches or attends. Coaches will be coaching for next year and will not be too concerned about winning games.

If we do not have a final 10 this is what will happen. Yet some us want to exacerbate that my halving the finals teams.

 

[Dr Awkward]

How can you say knockout prelims are unfair? What should they have a best of 3 or something? What about the Grand Final, thats knockout as well?? They are finals they should be very high stakes, the fact that the top team gets a week off and gets to play at home is a big enough advantage.

 

[vealesy]

Really - I mean its not like that was how the finals system USED to work for the preceding 100 years of the game.

That doesn't make it the best or the most suitable for the league in its present structure.

 

[mcgarnacle]

divs in regular season, 6 teams in the post-season, all sudden-death finals, i.e., playoffs.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

divs in regular season, 6 teams in the post-season, all sudden-death finals, i.e., playoffs.

Why do we need divisions? Sick of this idea.

****ing stupid idea and impossible to implement fairly.

It aint broke, dont fix it.

A top 10 is a required progression with more teams and can easily be implemented without compromising the current system, see below

Week 1

1 & 2 get the week off

3 v 6 winner to play 2nd, loser to play winner of 7 v 10
4 v 5 winner to play 1st, loser to play winner of 8 v 9

7 v 10 loser out, winner to play loser of 3 v 6
8 v 9 loser out, winner to play loser of 4 v 5

These four games act as qualifiers for the following week where the system reverts to the one we have in place right now. So...

Weeks 2-5

Exactly as they are now.

It works.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Why do we need divisions? Sick of this idea.

****ing stupid idea and impossible to implement fairly.

It aint broke, dont fix it.

A top 10 is a required progression with more teams and can easily be implemented without compromising the current system, see below



It works.

How about a system similar to that, except with 9 teams. In week 1, Team 1 gets the week off. Lowest place loser from the bottom 2 games is also out. From then on, 8 teams as per the current system.

I just like the idea of the final 5 in that it gave the top placed team an advantage. I know, it's not fair as the draw is uneven. However, I don't think the uneven draw is resposible for the difference between 1 and 2 all that often.

 

[Barkly St End]

A top 8 for 18 teams is perfect.

 

[JHF1870]

Here's one for you

Why don't they play a top 8 and a bottom 8. More games to watch A major grand final and a consolation grand final. The consolation grand final could be played anywhere. Gives all teams something to play for.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Here's one for you

Why don't they play a top 8 and a bottom 8. More games to watch A major grand final and a consolation grand final. The consolation grand final could be played anywhere. Gives all teams something to play for.

That was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Who is going to give a shit about that? You reckon you are going to hard, contested footy when playing off for 9th??

Come on.

 

[dajesmac]

A top 8 for 18 teams is perfect.

This. Do not change the finals system.

Ever.

 

[JHF1870]

That was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Who is going to give a shit about that? You reckon you are going to hard, contested footy when playing off for 9th??

Come on.

Yeah Shit, So sorry for not reading the 700 million posts in this thread before posting my comment.

 

[Barkly St End]

Yeah Shit, So sorry for not reading the 700 million posts in this thread before posting my comment.

There can be no forgiveness.

 

[Dan26]

So many people miss the point in terms of "giving the top team an advantage"

The very fact that we have a finals system at all (as opposed to giving the premiership to the top team like in the EPL) is inherently unfair on the top team, as they can dominate 22 weeks, then lose a Preliminary Final or Grand Final.

So ANY finals system, is unfair.

But, we seem to all agree that it is more exciting to play finals as it gives other teams, who are not quite good enough over 22 weeks a legitimate chance to still win the main prize. It's not fair, but it's more exciting and marketable so that's why we do it.

So, really once we decide that we have a finals system at all (unfair as it inherantly is) the only legitimate way to construct a finals series is by making it totally knockout.

It's been a bugbear of mine for years that finals themselves are DESIGNED to be about performing on the day. If it was about being the best over the season, we'd award the flag to the top team like the EPL. But finals are designed to be about performing on the day and always have been.

Even under the final-4 and final 5 system, the top team could still be eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final without getting a second chance. So, that being the case, why in the f*** do we have double chance, which are clearly money making exercises aimed at creating more finals?

Last year St.Kilda (1st) and Geelong (2nd) could be eliminated after one loss on Preliminary final night. St.Kilda in fact WERE eliminated ater one loss with no second chance in the Grand Final itself. So, this being the case, why in the hell do we give anyone a secnd chance, when the very double chance system we have used (even the final 5) still allows the top team to be out after one loss anyway?

There are plenty of ways to still advantage the top team/s without the use of a second chance. In the knockout NFL play-offs, the top teams have three distinct advanatges over the lower teams:

1.) the top teams get a week off (4 of the 12 teams in the play-offs)
2.) The top teams have the advantage of playing lower seeded opponents
3.) The top teams have home ground advantage

That's all you need. You don't need a double chance that, last year, only got used by "3rd and 4th" while the top two teams can go out after one loss in the Prelim. If the top teams can go out after one loss in the Prelim (which they currently can), the whole finals series should be constructed as knockout, using advantages similar to what the NFL top teams get over their opponents.

I cannot possibly see why anyone would disgaree. Who believes finals are NOT about performing on the day? We all know they ARE about performing on the day. They are NOT about getting second chances.

 

[Dan26]

So, having said all that, I believe a knockout final-10 is the way to go.

Does it devalue the finals? Perhaps. But any finals system that has 2 or more teams devalues the minor-premiers efforts, because even a "final-2" or a "final-3" in an 18-team legaue cna still see the top team go 22-0 and lose the Grand Final.

So, we know that any finals system that doesn't involve giving the title to the top team is unfair, so it's about finding the balancing act between what is reasonably fair and what is marketable.

A final-8 in an 18 team league makes for more meaningless games towards the end of the season. 10 teams keeps the season alive. So what if some average teams make it? The flag will always go to a good team, so what does it matter if a 10-12 team sneaks into 10th? Who cares. Its good for the excitement for those fans of teams who are middle of the road. After the first week of the finals we'll be down to 8 anyway.

But of course, as stated above it simpy HAS to be knockout. I will not acceot any other method, and believe m, I've seen them all, and I'm stupid enough to know the probabilities of every system ever devised. Trust me, nothing beats the knockout format.

KNOCKOUT FINAL 10 (winners in bold)
First week
First Elimination Final.... 7 v10
Second Elimination Final ......8 v 9

Second week
First Quarter Final.... 1st vs lowest placed elim. final winner (1 vs 10)
Second Quarter Final ......2nd vs highest placed elim. Final winner (2 v 8)
Third Quarter Final........ 3 v 6
Fourth Quarter Final....... 4 v 5

Third week
1st Prelim Final.... highest placed remaining team vs lowest placed remaining team (1 v 6)
2nd Prelim Final ...... 2nd-highest placed remaining team vs third highest placed remaining team (2 v 4)

Fourth week
Grand Final.



Probabilites (assuming all matches are 50-50)
1st - 12.5%
2nd - 12.5%
(1st and 2nd have the advantage of a week off and playing their first final against a low seeded team who PLAYED in week one. Both are guaranteed, no matter what to host home finals until the Grand Final. It is IMPOSSIBLE for both teams to not be higher seeded than their opponent until the GF)

3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 12.5%
6th - 12.5%
(3-4-5-6 all have a week off but they play each other, so they don't have the advanatge of playing a tema which played the week before like 1st and 2nd do. )

7th - 6.25%
8th - 6.25%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%
(7-8-9-10 all have to win 4 consecutive finals to win the flag)


So, there are 3 clear sets of teams with their own distinct advanatges.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Yeah Shit, So sorry for not reading the 700 million posts in this thread before posting my comment.

Wasn't having a go for that mate, just thought the idea wasn't thought through.

Everyone wants to watch hard contested footy, I dont think consolation finals would provide that. It would mean less than the NAB IMO.