The Finals System

[vealesy]

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

Obviously a noob to footy.

Current system:

1 and 2 : second chance, home ground adv in 1st game, home ground in prelim if win 1st round, home ground in semis if lose first week

3 and 4 : second chance, home ground in prelim if win 1st round, home ground in semis if lose first week

5 and 6 : home ground adv in 1st game

7 and 8 : need luck.

Its flawless and rewards those that finish higher up.

 

[Hump 17]

The finals system is whats best finacially for the AFL. Any system that allows a team finishing on top of the ladder to have to play an away final at the opponents home ground is wrong.

 

[WCE_phil]

It's bloody simple.

No preseason cup.

18 teams

Play every team once in first 17 rounds
Play a rivalry round
Play half of the remaining teams one year and half the next alternating home games.

26 rounds, final 8 in current system
Draft lottery on first round with bottom nine in one draw and top 9 in second draw.
Priority pick at start of second round for 2 lowest finishing teams.
Second round and onwards in draft based on home and away ladder.

30 week season
26 rounds home and away
4 weeks finals

 

[gPhonque]

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

Ignore vealesy's explanation as a) I'm not sure he understands my point, and b) if he does, he hasn't explained it very well. (in fact, he hasn't explained it at all... looks to me as though he's defending the Final 8 system!?)


Under the Final 5, the teams that finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd were guaranteed a double chance. (not including the Grand Final obviously!) What I mean by that is that for one of those teams to miss out on making the Grand Final, they HAD to lose TWO games for that to happen.

1st had a clear advantage - along with the guaranteed double chance, all they had to do to make the Grand Final was win one game. 2nd and 3rd had to win 2 games, but they were also guaranteed a double chance.

ie. They had to lose two games to be knocked out.

The current system does not do that.

eg.

We have a Final 8, and let's say Collingwood, who finish 1st on the ladder, win their first final and go into one of the two Preliminary finals. All of a sudden, if they lose, they're knocked out. Therefore, they aren't guaranteed a double chance, despite finishing 1st on the ladder.

The current Final 8 simply does not reward the teams who finish higher on the ladder well enough. How can we justify a system where a team can finish 1st on the ladder after 22 rounds, and then lose ONE final and be knocked out? Since the bulk of our season is made up of H&A games, I would have thought that those 22 games should mean a lot more come finals time.

They did under the Final 5.

But at the moment, a team can finish 3rd or 4th, lose a final, and still continue. And that's fair enough in an 8-team finals series. The problem, however, is that the team that finishes 1st (or 2nd) can win their first final, and then be knocked out in the Preliminary Final. So you have a situation where the team that finishes LOWER on the ladder gets a double chance in the finals, and the team that finishes HIGHER on the ladder doesn't!

It's a dumb system, with its main flaws being the fact that there are a) too many teams, and b) TWO Preliminary Finals. You simply can't have two Preliminary Finals without removing the guaranteed double chance as the Preliminary Final must be a knockout game.

There have been situations over the past 15 years (or however long the Final 8 has been around for) where the exact situation I mentioned above has happened; teams finishing lower have got a double chance, and teams finishing higher than them haven't, and it's completely unfair, and also makes a mockery of the entire H&A season. It was even worse under the old Final 8 system. But it's still flawed today. We've been very lucky the last few years in that the higher and more-fancied teams HAVE gotten through to the Grand Final, but that is not proof that the system is fair.... just luck.

 

[Barkly St End]

It's bloody simple.

No preseason cup.

18 teams

Play every team once in first 17 rounds
Play a rivalry round
Play half of the remaining teams one year and half the next alternating home games.

26 rounds, final 8 in current system
Draft lottery on first round with bottom nine in one draw and top 9 in second draw.
Priority pick at start of second round for 2 lowest finishing teams.
Second round and onwards in draft based on home and away ladder.

30 week season
26 rounds home and away
4 weeks finals

They are pretty good principles to stick with.

The one nagging doubt is whether we can go for 30 weeks.

From last week in March, to the last day of Sept, is 189 days or exactly 27 weeks (allowing for perhaps 28 games).

If we weasel and extra week out of cricket at either end of the season, we can manage it, otherwise it's a case of playing game at grounds the AFL controls, which might be possible for one round, but not for two rounds.

 

[Barkly St End]

There have been situations over the past 15 years (or however long the Final 8 has been around for) where the exact situation I mentioned above has happened; teams finishing lower have got a double chance, and teams finishing higher than them haven't, and it's completely unfair, and also makes a mockery of the entire H&A season. It was even worse under the old Final 8 system. But it's still flawed today. We've been very lucky the last few years in that the higher and more-fancied teams HAVE gotten through to the Grand Final, but that is not proof that the system is fair.... just luck.

It's true that that flaw exists.

Another flaw I don't like is the possibility of 1st meeting 2nd in a prelim - it doesn't sit well with me that they can knock each other out prior to the grand final.

But final 5 in an 18 team comp is really not feasible either.

 

[WCE_phil]

I'd have the grand final first saturday of october and tell the mcc to cop it or they can stick their entire deal up their ass. I also think there is access to enough grounds to have the first two weeks while cricket is still around.

You can play a game in tassie, a game on the gold coast, a game in perth, a game in adelaide, a game in sydney, a game at skilled and 3 games at etihad in the first week and the same in the second week except you have an etrxa game at etihad.

With 9 games a round as of 2012 the afl is looking at extra football days. Whether that is a game on a thursday night or a monday there are options there. If theres 4 days of football being played even if the scg,gabba and mcg dont want to play ball thats still enough time for 1 game a day at etihad. If they get their act together with the soil type and the growth lights then its very feasible.

 

[Charlotte]

Obviously a noob to footy.

Current system:

1 and 2 : second chance, home ground adv in 1st game, home ground in prelim if win 1st round, home ground in semis if lose first week

3 and 4 : second chance, home ground in prelim if win 1st round, home ground in semis if lose first week

5 and 6 : home ground adv in 1st game

7 and 8 : need luck.

Its flawless and rewards those that finish higher up.

Perhaps you didn't pick up on the sarcasim, I wasn't actually asking why 1 - 4 don't get a double chance.

I understand that, I was questioing why he thinks they do not get a double chance as if you finish 1 - 4 you get a double chance. You either get a double of playing at the Grand Final chance by losing and playing the following week or you get the double chance by the fact you don't have to play the following and automatically get into the semi.

 

[Koutafidamedis]

Current system is best. 1st should not get any special treatment over 2nd or 3rd as currently the fixture is unfair. Why reward a team with a week off (or whatever else has been suggested) because they may have had an easier run. Now I'm not saying that 1st always has an easier fixture but if they finish on top by 4 points or maybe even % it wouldn't be fair to the team who finished 2nd but had a much harder fixture.

 

[gPhonque]

I understand that, I was questioing why he thinks they do not get a double chance as if you finish 1 - 4 you get a double chance.

You don't if you win your first game and then lose the Prelim. That's called an instant knockout.

What we have at the moment is NOT a double chance.

It's just an easier path to a Preliminary Final.

Considering the aim of our game is to a) make the Grand Final, and b) win the Grand Final, then the current finals system, which only helps teams get to a Preliminary Final, basically makes a complete mockery of the 22 rounds of football we play leading up to it.

Might as well not play 22 rounds of football and just have a 16-team knockout finals series.

Final 5 was flawless, fair, and rewarded teams appropriately for their performance throughout the season.

Actually, I lie - there is one flaw, and that is the fact it doesn't make the AFL rich.

But surely, we could have a Final 5 series for the TRUE finalists, and then a "best of the rest" type of competition for the other teams? That way, we get the best Finals system, there is still something to play for for the remaining teams, and the AFL gets more games and more money.

Just a thought.

 

[Father Jack]

The best way to look at the current finals system is to divide it up into blocks of two weeks. Top four has two chances to make the second block, and once you're there it becomes knockout. You have had the week off so you do have a genuine advantage over your opponent, who may even have to travel interstate. Second chances are pretty unusual in finals/post-season/cup competitions anyway. You could win 16 games straight in NFL, lose one and end up having to watch the Superbowl on telly.

 

[vealesy]

Ignore vealesy's explanation as a) I'm not sure he understands my point, and b) if he does, he hasn't explained it very well. (in fact, he hasn't explained it at all... looks to me as though he's defending the Final 8 system!?)


Under the Final 5, the teams that finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd were guaranteed a double chance. (not including the Grand Final obviously!) What I mean by that is that for one of those teams to miss out on making the Grand Final, they HAD to lose TWO games for that to happen.

1st had a clear advantage - along with the guaranteed double chance, all they had to do to make the Grand Final was win one game. 2nd and 3rd had to win 2 games, but they were also guaranteed a double chance.

ie. They had to lose two games to be knocked out.

The current system does not do that.

eg.

We have a Final 8, and let's say Collingwood, who finish 1st on the ladder, win their first final and go into one of the two Preliminary finals. All of a sudden, if they lose, they're knocked out. Therefore, they aren't guaranteed a double chance, despite finishing 1st on the ladder.

The current Final 8 simply does not reward the teams who finish higher on the ladder well enough. How can we justify a system where a team can finish 1st on the ladder after 22 rounds, and then lose ONE final and be knocked out? Since the bulk of our season is made up of H&A games, I would have thought that those 22 games should mean a lot more come finals time.

They did under the Final 5.

But at the moment, a team can finish 3rd or 4th, lose a final, and still continue. And that's fair enough in an 8-team finals series. The problem, however, is that the team that finishes 1st (or 2nd) can win their first final, and then be knocked out in the Preliminary Final. So you have a situation where the team that finishes LOWER on the ladder gets a double chance in the finals, and the team that finishes HIGHER on the ladder doesn't!

It's a dumb system, with its main flaws being the fact that there are a) too many teams, and b) TWO Preliminary Finals. You simply can't have two Preliminary Finals without removing the guaranteed double chance as the Preliminary Final must be a knockout game.

There have been situations over the past 15 years (or however long the Final 8 has been around for) where the exact situation I mentioned above has happened; teams finishing lower have got a double chance, and teams finishing higher than them haven't, and it's completely unfair, and also makes a mockery of the entire H&A season. It was even worse under the old Final 8 system. But it's still flawed today. We've been very lucky the last few years in that the higher and more-fancied teams HAVE gotten through to the Grand Final, but that is not proof that the system is fair.... just luck.

I completely understand and disagree with everything you have said.

 

[vealesy]

Perhaps you didn't pick up on the sarcasim, I wasn't actually asking why 1 - 4 don't get a double chance.

I understand that, I was questioing why he thinks they do not get a double chance as if you finish 1 - 4 you get a double chance. You either get a double of playing at the Grand Final chance by losing and playing the following week or you get the double chance by the fact you don't have to play the following and automatically get into the semi.

I wasn't directing the comment at you, but to you.

 

[gPhonque]

The best way to look at the current finals system is to divide it up into blocks of two weeks. Top four has two chances to make the second block, and once you're there it becomes knockout. You have had the week off so you do have a genuine advantage over your opponent, who may even have to travel interstate. Second chances are pretty unusual in finals/post-season/cup competitions anyway. You could win 16 games straight in NFL, lose one and end up having to watch the Superbowl on telly.

I couldn't disagree more.

Surely the best thing for our game is to have the 2 best teams of the season in the Grand Final? We need LESS knockout games for top teams, not more!

The most pure way to do it would be to either a) Have no finals at all and just award the premiership to the top team, or b) Have no finals - just one Grand Final between the top 2 teams.

I'm not suggesting that for a minute though. Finals football is as much a part of our game as anything else. Therefore, we need a system that reflects what we all spend the majority of the bloody season watching - the H&A rounds!

Things like knockout rounds etc just make the entire H&A season irrelevant.

If you want to have a pure knockout finals system that doesn't reward performances throughout the season, then why bother playing 22 rounds of H&A football?

Seriously, why bother?

 

[gPhonque]

I completely understand and disagree with everything you have said.

I rooted your mum.

That's about how intelligent your post is, so I'm just responding in kind.

If you want to actually explain why you disagree, then I'm all ears.

Otherwise, get back to The Wiggles forum or wherever it is you usually hang out.

 

[vealesy]

You have a warped view of footy mate.

If you think winning the minor premiership is the be all and end all of an AFL season, you must be a closet port fan?

 

[gPhonque]

If you think winning the minor premiership is the be all and end all of an AFL season, you must be a closet port fan?

I'll refer you to a quote I made a couple of posts back....

"Considering the aim of our game is to a) make the Grand Final, and b) win the Grand Final...."

Can't read? No comprehension skills?

Like I said, get back to The Wiggles forum. This is obviously all too hard for you.

 

[McCrann]

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.

Very strange thing to say given how frequently the team in 8th beats the team in 5th. Happens quite a lot.

Also, the Top 4 is hardly ever decided before Round 22. If the Bulldogs lose to Geelong this week the Top 4 is wide open - and why wouldn't the Cats beat them?

In 2008 the Saints were not in the Top 4 for most of the season, and yet got there in the very last match of the 2004 Home & Away - hell, Neil Craig was even asked at his press conference how Adelaide would go against Geelong in the Qualifying Final! How bloody presumptuous of that reporter and Neil Craig!

Crows didn't even finish Top 4!

Last year - Western Bulldogs had to beat Collingwood in the last round (Another Top 4 team) to even make Top 4! - Again - last game of the home and away season!

So by my reckoning that means Top 4 wasn't decided in 2009 (last game of the h&a season), 2008 (last game of the h&a season), 2007 (North Melbourne grabbed Top 4 in Round 22), 2006 (Sydney grabbed Top 4 in Round 22), 2005 (In fact, this was the last time the Top 4 was set before Round 22). 2004 (Geelong & Melbourne were locked on 56pts going into Round 22 - Melbourne's defeat left the door open to Geelong to claim Top 4 in the last game of the h&a), 2003 (1 win between 2 and 8th after Round 21 - teams 4-8 were level on points!).

So in fact your thesis (or memory?) about the Top 4 is completely wrong. In only 1/7 years has the Top 4 been decided going into Round 22.

 

[vealesy]

I'll refer you to a quote I made a couple of posts back....

"Considering the aim of our game is to a) make the Grand Final, and b) win the Grand Final...."

Can't read? No comprehension skills?

Like I said, get back to The Wiggles forum. This is obviously all too hard for you.

I know you wrote that, but you in 'your' system, there is too much of an advantage to finishing top.

It seems you just have some form of grudge with the AFL for extending the season and finals due to more money, which is also one of your repeated points.

Most fans want MOAR footy.

Honestly, your simplistic view and explanation of your system does not warrant the complexities of explaining why the current system is the fairest, most entertaining, and well structured finals system there has EVER been.

Im pretty sure your system was how it is in the under 13s.

If you're still stuck in that age bracket mentally, maybe its time for your good self to get your testicles removed from your husbands purse.

 

[gbatman]

if it aint broke, don't fix it, the finals system is good, it stays.

 

[gPhonque]

I know you wrote that, but you in 'your' system, there is too much of an advantage to finishing top.

Why shouldn't you receive an advantage for finishing on top?

It seems you just have some form of grudge with the AFL for extending the season and finals due to more money, which is also one of your repeated points.

Your comprehension skills really are quite bad.

Again, I'll refer you a quote I made a few posts back:

"But surely, we could have a Final 5 series for the TRUE finalists, and then a "best of the rest" type of competition for the other teams? That way, we get the best Finals system, there is still something to play for for the remaining teams, and the AFL gets more games and more money."

Also, they haven't "extended" the season at all. The Final 5 was played over 4 weeks. The current Final 8 is played over 4 weeks. So I don't know where you've pulled that from. (actually, yes I do)

Honestly, your simplistic view and explanation of your system does not warrant the complexities of explaining why the current system is the fairest, most entertaining, and well structured finals system there has EVER been.

Ok, so you're obviously too young to remember the Final 5, as most who do remember it generally agree that it was "the fairest, most entertaining, and well structured finals system there has EVER been."

Firstly, how is the current Final 8 the "fairest?"

Secondly, "most entertaining" is subjective anyway. Personally, I think the Final 5 was the most entertaining for the following reasons:

* You had the TOP teams only involved. Meaning better quality footy.
* The way it was structured made for some fantastic replays of games. (2nd semi-finalists meeting again in the Grand Final, etc)
* Less games, meaning each game was given more importance and attention.

But as I said, that's all subjective. On that point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thirdly, how can a finals system that allows a lower-placed team to lose a final and continue, and a higher placed team to do the same a couple of weeks later and get knocked out, be "well structured?"

Im pretty sure your system was how it is in the under 13s.

I can only assume that's where you still play your football.

"noob..."

"MOAR..."

If you're still stuck in that age bracket mentally....

Well, you would know.


One final question:

Q. Why do we play 22 rounds of H&A football?

 

[gPhonque]

Just wanted to add...

If the ladder positions stay as they are at the moment, here's how the Final 5 series would look, and to make it easier, I'll bold the teams I think would be favourites/who might possibly win:

Week 1:

Elimination Final - Western Bulldogs Vs Fremantle
Qualifying Final - Geelong Vs St Kilda

Week 2:

1st Semi Final - St Kilda Vs Western Bulldogs
2nd Semi Final - Collingwood Vs Geelong

Week 3:

Preliminary Final - Geelong Vs St Kilda

Week 4:

Grand Final - Collingwood Vs Geelong



Looks like a damn entertaining month of football to me.

 

[vealesy]

Why shouldn't you receive an advantage for finishing on top?



Your comprehension skills really are quite bad.

It appears yours are average too then, considering i said TOO MUCH of an advantage, not NONE AT ALL.

 

[vealesy]

Just wanted to add...

If the ladder positions stay as they are at the moment, here's how the Final 5 series would look, and to make it easier, I'll bold the teams I think would be favourites/who might possibly win:

Week 1:

Elimination Final - Western Bulldogs Vs Fremantle
Qualifying Final - Geelong Vs St Kilda

Week 2:

1st Semi Final - St Kilda Vs Western Bulldogs
2nd Semi Final - Collingwood Vs Geelong

Week 3:

Preliminary Final - Geelong Vs St Kilda

Week 4:

Grand Final - Collingwood Vs Geelong



Looks like a damn entertaining month of football to me.

Yes thank you for pointing out that your way would mean, not enough football games, and too much of an advantage of finishing 1st.

 

[gPhonque]

It appears yours are average too then, considering i said TOO MUCH of an advantage, not NONE AT ALL.

Ah, but at the moment you're defending a system that gives 1st no advantage over 2nd, and come Preliminary Final time, no advantage over any other team that happens to have made it that far either.

So, I'll ask again:

Why shouldn't you receive an advantage for finishing on top?