The Finals System

[Ricmel]

It has long seemed ridiculous to me that we play 22 rounds and 176 games to whittle 16 teams down to 8 teams to play in the finals. Then the last 8 teams are all done and dusted inside 5 weeks!!

8 finalists from 16 to me is too many.

There is talk of going to 10 finalists with the expanded competition. My personal preference would be less finalists but more finals.

Maybe every team plays each other once, then the top 8 go into a round robin system.

Then the best 4 teams after the round robin playing the traditional preliminary final games then the grand final?

Does anyone else think the balance between the H&A season and the finals is out of whack?

 

[00Stinger]

Go back to the old top 6

 

[Premiers2007]

Go back to the old top 6

Nah, Final 8 will be fine once the two new teams are in.

A final 10 would be ridiculous!

 

[Ricmel]

Nah, Final 8 will be fine once the two new teams are in.

That would be more balanced but I don't think the AFL is going to let the opportunity to have more finals games slip.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Go back to the old top 6

The old final 6 systems were riddled with anomalies for the sake of getting one extra final out of it than it should. The proper final 6 system sees 1 and 2 have a week off and play each other in the old 2nd Semi Final, while 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 play off for the right to play in the old 1st Semi Final. It's a boring system though.

50% of clubs making the finals should be the limit though.

If the AFL really wanted to make more $$$, they could do the following Final 8.

Have two "groups"
Group A - 1, 2, 7, 8
Group B - 3, 4, 5, 6

Week 1 Qualifying Finals
1 v 8
2 v 7
-----
3 v 6
4 v 5

Week 2 Qualifying Finals
1 v 7
2 v 8
-----
3 v 5
4 v 6

Top 2 in a Group proceed to the Preliminary Finals, but they are re-ranked based on seeding... so if 2nd came first in Group A and 1st came second in Group A, they are re-ranked 1st then 2nd for the group in terms of determining the Preliminary Finals.

Preliminary Finals
Group A 1st v Group B 2nd
Group B 1st v Group A 2nd

Teams with the higher seeding hosts.... If 2nd ends up second in Group A after re-ranking and 3rd came first in Group B after re-ranking, 2nd still hosts their Prelim against 3rd.

GF - Preliminary Final winners play off.

So if done on the current ladder.

Week 1

1. Collingwood v 8. Hawthorn
2. Geelong v 7. Sydney
3. St.Kilda v 6. Carlton
4. Western Bulldogs v 5. Fremantle

Week 2

1. Collingwood v 7. Sydney
2. Geelong v 8. Hawthorn
3. St.Kilda v 5. Fremantle
4. Western Bulldogs v 6. Carlton

Only slight issue is in regards to fixturing.... having a final on the Sunday in Week 2 could force a Sunday afternoon Prelim the following weekend if both teams qualify for the Preliminary Finals and both are staged at the MCG (neither team could play on Friday night, meaning neither Preliminary Final takes place on Friday Night)... the GF would have to be on a Saturday Night.

Fixture

Week 1

Friday Night
Collingwood v Hawthorn - MCG
Saturday
Western Bulldogs v Fremantle - Etihad Stadium
Saturday Night
Geelong v Sydney - MCG
Sunday
St.Kilda v Carlton - MCG

Week 2

Friday Night
Geelong v Hawthorn - MCG
Saturday
St.Kilda v Fremantle - Etihad Stadium
Saturday Night
Collingwood v Sydney - MCG
Sunday
Western Bulldogs v Carlton - MCG

 

[Higs]

A top 8 from 18 teams will work perfectly, but no doubt the AFL will change it to a much more terrible system

 

[Quinz]

The bottom teams in the eight are already spectators in the finals. Letting 10 of the 18 teams make finals is a terrible idea, keeping it at 8 is alright.

 

[Charlotte]

It has long seemed ridiculous to me that we play 22 rounds and 176 games to whittle 16 teams down to 8 teams to play in the finals. Then the last 8 teams are all done and dusted inside 5 weeks!!

8 finalists from 16 to me is too many.

There is talk of going to 10 finalists with the expanded competition. My personal preference would be less finalists but more finals.

Maybe every team plays each other once, then the top 8 go into a round robin system.

Then the best 4 teams after the round robin playing the traditional preliminary final games then the grand final?

Does anyone else think the balance between the H&A season and the finals is out of whack?

I think it is, 8 with 18 teams is good but def not 10. Also I like your round robin where that way the AFL can still capatlise on the finals. I remember last year that the 8th (and perhaps 7th) positions were teams that had lost more than they had won! is that really deservent of a finals games - I think not!

 

[Ricmel]

I think it is, 8 with 18 teams is good but def not 10. Also I like your round robin where that way the AFL can still capatlise on the finals. I remember last year that the 8th (and perhaps 7th) positions were teams that had lost more than they had won! is that really deservent of a finals games - I think not!

There are a lot of meaningless games played in the last 6 weeks of the H&A season.

Better to me to play 17 weeks (all teams play each other once) then go into a 8 team 7 week round robin then prelim then GF.

That is 26 weeks. Same as current season.

 

[vealesy]

Are you kidding?

The current top 8 system is perfect, it should never be changed.

It gives distinct advantages to those that finish higher up inside the system.

Plus there will be 24 rounds of football next season, they won't make it any longer through extra pointless finals.

Its still a bit of a joke that we swapped finals systems with the NRL.

They had it perfect, and they changed to the crappy old McIntyre system of 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc.

 

[cfc_4_ever]

I think it is, 8 with 18 teams is good but def not 10. Also I like your round robin where that way the AFL can still capatlise on the finals. I remember last year that the 8th (and perhaps 7th) positions were teams that had lost more than they had won! is that really deservent of a finals games - I think not!

Last year Carlton in 7th where 13-9, Essendon in 8th where 10-1-11.

7th was, but 8th wasn't. This year though 11-11 may be enough to get you as high as 7th!!

Only problem I see with a round robin, is the potential of the prelim teams & combination being decided by percentage, in finals I like the idea of having a winner and a loser and the score being irrelevant. We could have the two best teams playing of in the prelim. It would mean the higher ranked teams, even if they where winning comfortably against a team who is 7th or 8th, couldn't rest players and take the foot of the gas, for the fear of missing out only on percentage. Maybe a situation where percentage is based on not only the finals series but the season as well, giving the higher ranked teams a slightly higher advantage that they have rightfully earned!! Teams just have there points reset, not there for & against, so percentage is unchanged!

 

[FuManchu]

The old top 5 was perfect.

Reward the top team with a week off. It would make the battle for 1st more intense. Now the only battle is to make top 4 and the only incentive within that top 4 may be trying to avoid an away final. But most years the top 4 is decided weeks out and their really is no intensity involved in determining the make up of the top 4.

Teams 6th to 8 are barely above average and by including them we are only rewarding mediocrity, all for the sake of revenue raising. When you see finals with paltry crowds in the lower half of the 8, its pretty much telling us the relevance of these teams to the final outcome.

 

[Eth]

Final eight has to stay. A final eight with 18 teams (or even 20) could mean that 13 wins and 11 losses (assuming that there are 24 rounds) might not even get you into the finals - it cancels out the mediocre teams, such as Essendon of last year.

 

[Skids]

The old top 5 was perfect.

Reward the top team with a week off. It would make the battle for 1st more intense. Now the only battle is to make top 4 and the only incentive within that top 4 may be trying to avoid an away final. But most years the top 4 is decided weeks out and their really is no intensity involved in determining the make up of the top 4.

Teams 6th to 8 are barely above average and by including them we are only rewarding mediocrity, all for the sake of revenue raising. When you see finals with paltry crowds in the lower half of the 8, its pretty much telling us the relevance of these teams to the final outcome.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It has long seemed ridiculous to me that we play 22 rounds and 176 games to whittle 16 teams down to 8 teams to play in the finals. Then the last 8 teams are all done and dusted inside 5 weeks!!

Does anyone else think the balance between the H&A season and the finals is out of whack?

Yes, I certainly do. I'm not sure of what the solution is, but it seems stupid to go through such a tough campain, then the 1st week of the finals .. then you sit back and think to yourself "there's only 5 more games left in the season".

I think there should be a lot more finals, but how you do it I don't know.

 

[Barkly St End]

I hope they stick with a final 8 when we have 18 teams, sounds about right.

 

[Father Jack]

some sort of conference system ... each group of nine has the old final four in place, winners of each conference play the grand final.

 

[Ricmel]

Gotta say I really don't like the idea of "conferences". That just really seems to rip all the old traditions apart and create as many issues as it resolves.

 

[Father Jack]

rip what old traditions apart?

 

[Ricmel]

rip what old traditions apart?

A single league, an H&A season and a finals series.

 

[gPhonque]

I've been saying it's out of whack for years.... but for a different reason.

Not because there aren't enough finals, but because there are too many.

As Fu Manchu said, the old Final 5 was perfect.

It was well balanced, giving a clear advantage to 1st and a GUARANTEED double chance, also giving 2nd and 3rd a guaranteed double chance, and then 4th and 5th making up the numbers.... as they generally do anyway.

These days, it's just silly. 1st gets ZERO advantage for finishing 1st. They don't even get a guaranteed double chance.

2nd and 3rd get no guaranteed double chance.

4th basically gets the same deal as 1st.

Dumb.

5th to 8th... well who cares about them anyway. They're lucky to be there.

Plus, the drama of the Final 5 was the best. Less games, meaning more interest in each game. 2nd Vs 3rd Qualifying Final... winner plays 1st the following week... with the chance of the rematch in the Grand Final.

Easily the best system we've ever had.

I think we should go back to the Final 5, but unfortunately our game is more about money than the actual game these days.

Edit: Also, performing on the day in the finals is part of our game. A single game can make or break a team, or a player. Introducing a round robin or "series within a series" kills that in my opinion. We don't want to do that.

 

[Father Jack]

A single league, an H&A season and a finals series.

All those things would still be there. The biggest tradition died years ago when teams stopped playing each other twice.

 

[pdave54]

some sort of conference system ... each group of nine has the old final four in place, winners of each conference play the grand final.

Yes two conferences for 18 teams. Get rid of pre season, 24 round H&A, each team plays each other trice, a team each from WA NSW WA in each. Keep final 8, top 4 from each conference

 

[longsuffreosupp]

A top 5 would just about be sewn up by now. As it stands, a handful of teams can make the 8 and it gets pretty exciting in the next couple of weeks.

 

[Charlotte]

It was well balanced, giving a clear advantage to 1st and a GUARANTEED double chance, also giving 2nd and 3rd a guaranteed double chance, and then 4th and 5th making up the numbers.... as they generally do anyway.

These days, it's just silly. 1st gets ZERO advantage for finishing 1st. They don't even get a guaranteed double chance.

2nd and 3rd get no guaranteed double chance.

4th basically gets the same deal as 1st.

Ummm sorry but I don't understand why you don't think they get a second chance