The Finals System

[Dan26]

Your system gives minimal advantage to those finishing higher up the ladder. All the teams will be aiming for is to sure up a position in the finals. There is no real advantage from finishing 3rd to finishing 10th. A team will merely win enough games (say 11) to ensure a finals birth and then manage their list for the remainder of the H&A system to ensure their players are fresh come finals time.

That's not true at all. There are 5 separate sets of advantages (taking into account home ground advantage of course)

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.



1st and 2nd
- Both have a week off
- Both play there first final versus a team who played in week one
- both play their first final versus a low seeded team (7th, 8th, 9th or 10th)
- both are guaranteed to be the home team for every final they play until the GF

3rd and 4th
- Both have a week off (but they play 6th and 5th respectively who also have a week off so there is no advantage in playing a team who played in week one like the advantage 1st and 2nd get.
- Need to win 3 finals to win flag, (just like 1st and 2nd do) but they are not guaranteed home games after week 2. If they play in the prelim Final - provided they play 1st and 2nd - they will be the away team

5th and 6th
- same as 3rd and 4th except they are away from home in their first final. They also don't benefit from the seedings because they will likely be playing away from home for every match against higher seeded opponents.

7th and 8th
- have to win 4 finals to win flag
- are at home for the first week versus 9th and 10th, then away from home for every final after that

9th and 10th
- same as 7th and 8th, except they are away from home in the first week.

 

[Fadge]

That's not true at all. There are 5 separate sets of advantages (taking into account home ground advantage of course)

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.



1st and 2nd
- Both have a week off
- Both play there first final versus a team who played in week one
- both play their first final versus a low seeded team (7th, 8th, 9th or 10th)
- both are guaranteed to be the home team for every final they play until the GF

3rd and 4th
- Both have a week off (but they play 6th and 5th respectively who also have a week off so there is no advantage in playing a team who played in week one like the advantage 1st and 2nd get.
- Need to win 3 finals to win flag, (just like 1st and 2nd do) but they are not guaranteed home games after week 2. If they play in the prelim Final - provided they play 1st and 2nd - they will be the away team

5th and 6th
- same as 3rd and 4th except they are away from home in their first final. They also don't benefit from the seedings because they will likely be playing away from home for every match against higher seeded opponents.

7th and 8th
- have to win 4 finals to win flag
- are at home for the first week versus 9th and 10th, then away from home for every final after that

9th and 10th
- same as 7th and 8th, except they are away from home in the first week.

We could therefore see the teams ranked 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th over the course of the season playing off in the Preliminary Finals. That would be enthralling football.

The teams finishing 9th and 10th only have to beat the 7th and 8th ranked teams in week one to be on an even keel with he top 2 ranked teams. Similarly, the teams ranked 7th and 8th need only beat the 9th and 10th ranked teams at home to be in the same position.

It's still as flawed as it was when you first introduced it. Terrible system.

 

[Fadge]

If a double chance is used it should be used either A.) all the way through the finals, or B.) Not at all.

I say not at all.

Option A was esentally the Argus sysrem used from 1898 -1930 where the minor-premiers received a second chance even if they lost the Grand Final.

What you are suggesting (the status-quo) doesn't make as much sense as pure knockout, because the current system can see the top team eliminated after one loss anyway! With no double chance. The current system is an "in-between" sysrem.

So, that being the case, why have the double chance? It's ludicrous. Apart from being unnecessary it goes agaisnt what people want. I would say that 99.999999% of the population like knockout football (which is what the Grand Final is) because we all like the fact that the season is on the line in one match. Knockout is the heart and soul, and the tradition of finals football.

That's what finals are about - performing ion the day. They are not about getting second chances for losing. I don't see how that can be realistically argued.

Given that, we can expect to see greater build-up and significantly larger attendances for the Elimination Finals ahead of the Qualifying Finals?

That is what you're suggesting. And it's ludicrous.

 

[gPhonque]

Another Essendon supporter agrees with Dan.

Let's see... will Essendon finish in the top 4 anytime soon, even the next decade? Nope. Will they finish top 10. Maybe.

Does Essendon have the capacity to have an inconsistent season but still beat the top sides? Yep. So the new system would reward the most mediocre of sides like Essendon above anyone else. They would gain the most relatively. We can smell the BS from there Dan. Your pathetic attempt, is what it is.

Wow.

Even including Dan's posts, your post wins the award for the most dumb post in this thread.

Here's why:

a) If you'd read ANY of this thread, OR EVEN THE POST OF MINE THAT YOU QUOTED AND REPLIED TO, you'd have noticed that I've been calling for MORE advantages for top teams, and LESS for lower placed teams. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy with a Final 5. I want to see the cream of the crop in the finals... not more than half the competition as Dan is suggesting.

b) If you'd read any of the last few pages, you'd have noticed that I've been arguing with Dan as much as anybody.



Do you feel dumb yet?



The only thing I agree with Dan on is that the current system is a farce. And it is.


Apart from that, Dan and I have completely opposite views on absolutely everything in this thread. He wants knockout - I want true guaranteed double chances for top teams (as we used to have under the Final 5) and LESS mediocrity in the finals.

So your post couldn't have been more misplaced and just plain dumb.

In future, you should try thinking and perhaps reading some of the thread before you post.

 

[Dan26]

We could therefore see the teams ranked 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th over the course of the season playing off in the Preliminary Finals. That would be enthralling football.

Chances of that are a million to 1. Under the current final-8 we can have 7th vs 8th in the Grand Final. Does that mean I can say be sarcastic too and say:

"Under the current final-8, we could therefore see the teams ranked 7th and 8th over the course of the season playing off in the Grand Final. That would be enthralling football"

The NBA play-offs potentially allows 8th seed in both conferneces to advance to the finals against each other. So what? It's never happened, and probably won't ever happen.

It's like any system, including the current one. If the bottom teams legitimately and fairly win their way through, then good luck to them.

The teams finishing 9th and 10th only have to beat the 7th and 8th ranked teams in week one to be on an even keel with he top 2 ranked teams.

So? Under the current system, 7th and 8th only need to win and they will be on the same level as two of the top 4, who will have lost, simply because two of the top four play each other.

But what you are saying is wrong anyway, because it's like saying that in the NBA play-offs 1st playing 8th in the first round has no advantage because they are on the same level.

But the advantage 1st get from playing the lowest ranked teams means 1st has beaten 8th over 90% of the time in the first round of the NBA play-offs.

1st beat 8th from 1994-1999 in the AFL 6 times (6-0 record), and of course 1st has home ground advantage.

You only have to look at any seeding sysrtem anywhere in the world to see that the top seeds, by virtue of playing lower ranking opponents AND also having home ground advantage, very rarely lose.

It's still as flawed as it was when you first introduced it.

It's not flawed at all. There is no flaw at all. 1st and 2nd are seeded to play each other in the GF should they keep winning. It retains the knockout concept that you, and everyone else loves, and which is the heart and sould of finals football. And there are FIVE (count them, five) different sets of advantages.

It's like saying that the NFL play-off sysrtem is "flawed" and is a "terrible system."

Do you honestly think their knockout final-12 is a "terrible and flawed" system. Funny, because 300 million Americans seem to like it, and it's essentially the same in principle as the knockout final-10 which you insultingly and incorrectly label as flawed.

Last time I checked the knockout final-10 doesn't allow 3rd and 4th to get a double chance, and advance to the Grand Final by then beating 1st and 2nd who are eliminated without getting a second chance. THAT is flawed, and to suggest that is not a flaw, is ignorant of the current system.

 

[Dan26]

Given that, we can expect to see greater build-up and significantly larger attendances for the Elimination Finals ahead of the Qualifying Finals?

That is what you're suggesting. And it's ludicrous.

You're trying to be too clever and it's not working.

Obviously, when two top 4 teams play each other in a "double chance" final, the crowd and expectation will still be big, because that;s what you expect when you pit two good teams against each other, regardless of what's at stake. We saw that with Coll vs Gee in round 19.

But when the same top-4 teams meet in reverse order for the Prelim Finals two weeks later, the crowds are bigger, the TV ratings are bigger and the ramifications for losing are bigger. And therefore the excitiment is bigger.

The fans love knockout football. That's why they love the Grand Final.

People might like the Qualifying Finals as a contest, yes. That's because two good teams are playing. But I don't believe that anyone comes away from the Qualifying Final saying, "Wow, did you see how we lost and our season is still alive! Wow, that aspect of the outcome was sooooo exciting"

The CONTEST on the ground is exciting. But the outcome of not being eliminated is not, in itself exciting, or as exciting as it would be if the season was on the line, like in the Preliminary Finals.

Knockout has always been, and always will be the heart and soul of what finals are about, and you know that as well as I do.

 

[Fadge]

Dan, how 'bout a response to my comment about the interest in the Qualifying Finals compared with the Elimination Finals?

You appear to have conveniently overlooked that.

 

[Dan26]

Dan, how 'bout a response to my comment about the interest in the Qualifying Finals compared with the Elimination Finals?

You appear to have conveniently overlooked that.

See above

 

[Roby]

Wow.

Even including Dan's posts, your post wins the award for the most dumb post in this thread.

Here's why:

a) If you'd read ANY of this thread, OR EVEN THE POST OF MINE THAT YOU QUOTED AND REPLIED TO, you'd have noticed that I've been calling for MORE advantages for top teams, and LESS for lower placed teams. In fact, I'd be perfectly happy with a Final 5. I want to see the cream of the crop in the finals... not more than half the competition as Dan is suggesting.

b) If you'd read any of the last few pages, you'd have noticed that I've been arguing with Dan as much as anybody.



Do you feel dumb yet?



The only thing I agree with Dan on is that the current system is a farce. And it is.


Apart from that, Dan and I have completely opposite views on absolutely everything in this thread. He wants knockout - I want true guaranteed double chances for top teams (as we used to have under the Final 5) and LESS mediocrity in the finals.

So your post couldn't have been more misplaced and just plain dumb.

In future, you should try thinking and perhaps reading some of the thread before you post.

If my post is the dumbest in the thread, you sir have just trumped that.

This is what Dan26 said.

That logic doesn't make any sense.

In 2007 6th-placed Collingwood came within 5 points of beating top-placed Geelong.

In 2001, 6th-placed Hawthorn came within a whisker of beating top-placed Essendon.

If those two results were reversed, and 6th made the Grand Final both years (which nearly happened) would you argue the the finals system doesn't work?

Over a long period of time there will be occasions where lower placed sides make the Grand Final.

The fact that it hasn't happend yet in this finals system (even though 6th nearly made it in both 2001 and 2007) doesn't mean the system is perfect. The sysem is NOT knockout so it cannot be perfect because finals should be knockout. That's what finals are about - performing on the day.

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, and totally against the traditional ideology of what finals are about.

If it's good enough to be eliminated in the Prelim after one loss, then it's good enough to be eliminated after one loss in any game

.

Then you said.

100% agree.

So what your saying is you agree 100% with Dan not wanting double chances and yet would prefer having double chances. You agree with him wanting 10 teams in the final but you want half of that.



Riiiight..... backing away from crazy person.... very slowly.

 

[Fadge]

You're trying to be too clever and it's not working.

Obviously, when two top 4 teams play each other in a "double chance" final, the crowd and expectation will still be big, because that;s what you expect when you pit two good teams against each other, regardless of what's at stake. We saw that with Coll vs Gee in round 19.

But when the same top-4 teams meet in reverse order for the Prelim Finals two weeks later, the crowds are bigger, the TV ratings are bigger and the ramifications for losing are bigger. And therefore the excitiment is bigger.

The fans love knockout football. That's why they love the Grand Final.

People might like the Qualifying Finals as a contest, yes. That's because two good teams are playing. But I don't believe that anyone comes away from the Qualifying Final saying, "Wow, did you see how we lost and our season is still alive! Wow, that aspect of the outcome was sooooo exciting"

Knockout has always been, and always will be the heart and soul of what finals are about, and you know that as well as I do.

But if 99.9999999% of all followers prefer knockout matches, why wouldn't the crowds be larger and the interest be greater for Elimination finals, even if they are being played between slightly lesser teams?

 

[Dan26]

But if 99.9999999% of all followers prefer knockout matches, why wouldn't the crowds be larger and the interest be greater for Elimination finals, even if they are being played between slightly lesser teams?

That's ridiculous logic. Why did 84,000 see Coll vs Gee lasrt week? Both teams were already assured of a top 4 spot? It wasn't "knockout"

It's because, just like that round 19 game, the Qualifying Finals will still attract crowds because people like the contest of two top-4 teams playing each other.

Fans like the contest. I'd be more likely to go to a Coll vs Bulldogs Qualifying Final than a 6v7 Elimination final, because the former promises more of a contest between two flag contenders. The latter doesn't.

The former produces a better match. But the OUTCOME of the match, is not as "final" or as exciting as a match where your season is on the line. The on-field contest is better, but the outcome of a Qualifying Final is not as exciting.

I don't believe fans are in love with the act of losing and still getting a second chance. How many people prefer the Qualifying Finals to the Preliminary Final? None.

Everyone I know loves the Grand Final. Why? Because the season is on the line. Same with the prelims. That's what makes the OUTCOME (not the on-field contest but the outcome) more exciting than a final where the loser still gets to play.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That's not true at all. There are 5 separate sets of advantages (taking into account home ground advantage of course)

The advantages between teams placed 3-10 are negligible. The current system is the best and logically fairest because it gives teams something to aim for in finishing in the top 4 over positions 5-8. Top 4 gets a double chance and the chance at a week off and home preliminary final and only has to win 3 games to win the flag. Positions 5-8 face instant elimination and have to win 4 matches to win the flag. Therefore there is a significant advantage finishing 4th over 5th.

In the system you propose there is no real advantage with finishing 3rd over 10th. Under your system the second half of the H&A season would become almost meaningless and teams would be wrapping their best players in cotton wool until the finals.

The current system is the best one for the AFL. It is the most logical and common sense system and that is why we have it in place. It gives the advantage to those teams who deserve it and ensures we have a Grand Final where each team is likely to have had the same build up. This is why there has only been two GF's this decade (2003 & 2007) where the premier has been decided by 3/4 time. Simply put the current system is the best one and is infinitely better than a top-10 or pure knockout system. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the current system is the fairest and best.

Once again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[gPhonque]

If my post is the dumbest in the thread, you sir have just trumped that.

This is what Dan26 said.

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:

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...

I agree 100% with what he posted there.

So what your saying is you agree 100% with Dan not wanting double chances and yet would prefer having double chances.

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.

You agree with him wanting 10 teams in the final but you half that.

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

Riiiight..... backing away from crazy person.... very slowly.

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

 

[Dan26]

In the system you propose there is no real advantage with finishing 3rd over 10th.

Mathematically, 3rd (with a 12.5% chance of winning the flag) is twice as likely as 10th (with a 6.25% chance of winning the flag)

And those probabilities are assuming that each match is 50-50. Each match is not 50-50. 3rd is more than 50% likely to beat 6th. And 10th (if they win against 7th) has little hope against 1st the next week. Maybe a 5-10% chance of winning.

3rd only has to win 3 finals to win the flag, and gets a home final versus 6th first up.

10th has to win 4 finals to win the flag, is away to 7th first up, and then away to 1st in the second week.

There is an enourmity of difference between the two.

None of this seems to be a problem in the NFL where the top 4 have a week off and 5th-12th play in week one to then advance to meet the top 4 in week two. Why isn't it a problem there?

Stop being pidgeon-holed into a conservtative"I've always known it my way, so I can't accept any outward thinking" approach. Think outside the square, and learn that what we do here in the AFL isn't always the best way.

 

[Fadge]

Before the first bounce of a Qualifying Final you have two legitimate Premiership contenders. The winner gets a week off and goes straight through to the Preliminary Final, whilst the loser has to lick their wounds, front up the following week, and then most likely play the winner of the second Qualifying Final for the right to play in a Grand Final.

The winner of the Elimination Final will most likely continue to make up the numbers and get beaten in the Semi-Final.

For me, the OUTCOME of the Qualifying Final is more exciting because the winner really sets themselves up for a fair dinkum tilt at the premiership whilst the loser has to then win three further games, without a weeks break, against quality opposition to win a flag.

Interestingly, the last three Grand Finals have comprised the teams that have won the Qualifying Finals.

Now Dan, I don't expect you to agree, but I for one get far more excitement from the OUTCOME of a Qualifying Final than I do an Elimination Final. I suggest I'm not alone there.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Stop being pidgeon-holed into a conservtative"I've always known it my way, so I can't accept any outward thinking" approach. Think outside the square, and learn that what we do here in the AFL isn't always the best way.

Its got nothing to do with that. The fact is that I believe the current system is the best and rewards the teams who finish higher. If you weren't so stubborn you would see that not everyone has to agree with your opinion. And it is only your opinion.

I understand how the NFL playoffs work. I have been following the NFL for a couple of years. There system works great; for them. They also have conferences, divisions and wild card games. Our system works great; for us. If you weren't so pigeon-holed into a "my way of thinking is superior to everyone else's and is obviously correct" you would see that. Your way of thinking is what is stuffing this game up; it is the same thinking as Demetrious and Anderson and the other nuffies in charge who think that they're ideas are simply the best and most correct and they go about forcing their opinions on everyone else who is happy with the way things are.

 

[Dan26]

Now Dan, I don't expect you to agree, but I for one get far more excitement from the OUTCOME of a Qualifying Final than I do an Elimination Final. I suggest I'm not alone there.

I think you get excitement about the prospect of winning and the benefit of a week off and a home Preliminary Final.

I don't think the outcome of losing and still being allowed to play-on (whilst a relief) is actually "exciting"

The same top-4 teams playing-off in the Preliminary Finals, where the SEASON IS ON THE LINE is more exciting, as I'm sure you'd agree.

An interesting mathematical fact about the Qualifying Finals to show you they are not as important as you might think.

Under the current final-8, the top 4 all have a probability of 18.75% of winning the flag. The winner of the Qualifying Final advances to the prelim where they have a 25% chance of winning the flag. The loser of the Qualifying Final goes to the semi-Final where they have a 12.5% chance of winning the flag.

So, what is really at stake (mathematically, anyway) is an 18.75% chance that goes up by 6.25%..... or down by 6.25%

That's all you are playing for.... 6.25% either up or down.

I know what I'm about to say won't happen in reality but let my hypothesize:

Your team needs to win 3 matches to win the flag, right? And ideally, that would mean WIN- BYE- WIN-WIN.

Let's suppose Mick Malthosue said to himself: "I want us to have the bye in week one:

So, Collingwood rests every player, and loses the Qualifyiing final with 22 reserves players. All regular 22 players are rested. So, the Bulldogs won, but only because Collingwood had a "bye."

So, the Pies have effectively had a bye, and their equation is now BYE-WIN-WIN-WIN....... which is exactly the same as WIN-BYE-WIN-WIN. And the new scenario would be easier because the Pies first final in week 2 would be against the winner of 5th vs 8th who played in week one, rather than against 4th.

It goes to show you, that if Collingwood wanted to, they could exploit the system and actually make it easier for themselves.

It goes to show you that the Qualifying finals, whilst important, are not as important as what they seem. You are only playing to improve your chances by 6.25%

If you win the Prelim you have improved your chances by 25% (from 25% to 50%) so you have improved your chances by 4 times as much as what winning the Qualifying Final does to your chances.

 

[Dan26]

I understand how the NFL playoffs work. I have been following the NFL for a couple of years. There system works great; for them. They also have conferences, divisions and wild card games.

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

The uneven fixture has been a bugbear of many people for years. Having three divisions of six, where you play everyone in your own division twice and every other team once is 22 games.

So, with an 18-team league, divisions begin to make sense as they do in ANY league where the number of teams hits a large number. Its not an "American" idea as such. It's an idea that suits leagues that have uneven fixtures. So that teams are grouped, and the teams within each group have the same fixture as each other.

You seem to imply that should this fair fixturing concept be introduced, then the knockout finals system has more merit.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I don't think the outcome of losing and still being allowed to play-on (whilst a relief) is actually "exciting"

You don't. Many do. Perhaps AFL is not the sport for you. Perhaps you should follow a sport that's more to you liking, rather than change the sport that many are happy with so as it suits your needs.

It's our game too.

 

[Dan26]

You don't. Many do. Perhaps AFL is not the sport for you. Perhaps you should follow a sport that's more to you liking, rather than change the sport that many are happy with so as it suits your needs.

It's our game too.

LOL!

Mate, please.

The OUTCOME itself of losing and not being eliminated is not, in itself, exciting.

The actual match itself may be tremendously exciting. The on-field CONTEST is exciting, yes. Just like a H&A match where there isn't as much on the line can still have a tremendously exciting, tense close match.

But the actual OUTCOME of losing and still being allowed to play the next week (as opposed to the on-field contest) is not, in itself, exciting.

You are confusing the on-field contest (which is exciting) with the outcome, which is not (or not as exciting as if your season was on the line)

 

[Fadge]

So, what is really at stake (mathematically, anyway) is an 18.75% chance that goes up by 6.25%..... or down by 6.25%

That's all you are playing for.... 6.25% either up or down.

Your calculations, like your logic, is extremely simplistic as they assume all games are 50/50 prospects.

The likely probabilities are:
Win Qualifying Final:
70% chance of winning the Preliminary as you will most likely play a 'lesser' opponent without the benefit of a weeks rest. Remember, the last 3 years has seen all Qualifying Final winners play in the Grand Final. There is also occasionally the home ground advantage;
50% chance of wining the Grand Final, assuming the other Qualifying Final winner wins through. 60% chance if they don't.
That results in a 35% to 42% chance of winning the Premiership.

Lose Qualifying Final:
85% chance of winning the Semi-Final. Only two teams have gone out in 'straight sets' under the current final 8 system.
30% chance of winning the Preliminary Final. (Converse of the above).
40% chance of winning the Grand Final.
This equates to approximately a 10% chance of winning a Premiership.

These calculations are still quite simplistic, but it gives an idea as to the benefit of winning the Qualifying Final. Again, I'm sure you won't agree Dan.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

You should start a poll Dan, then you can prove to all these fools that 99.99999999% of footy fans will prefer a pure knockout finals system.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

85% chance of winning the Semi-Final. Only two teams have gone out in 'straight sets' under the current final 8 system.

Based on the last 10 years of the current system, with 20 semi finals being played and only 2 top 4 teams losing them, I make it a 90% chance of winning a semi after losing a QF.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

You should start a poll Dan, then you can prove to all these fools that 99.99999999% of footy fans will prefer a pure knockout finals system.

Excellent suggestion.

 

[Dan26]

Your calculations, like your logic, is extremely simplistic as they assume all games are 50/50 prospects.

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.