The Finals System

[Power King]

I'd like to keep the number of finals teams as it is, ie a top 8, when the league expands to 18 teams.

I agree with the OP in that a 22 round season of 16 teams being halved to 8 which then decides the winner in just a short number of weeks doesnt makes the balance seem out of whack. The problem is finding a finals system that is as fair as what we currently have (nothing is perfect) whilst being able to expand how long it goes for.

but yeah, when the comp expands to 18 teams, make it a finals system comprising 8 teams. why make it 9 for the sake of keeping it half of the league, and why expand it to ten which means over half the teams deserve to play finals?

 

[underthestars]

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.

no advantage whatsoever to the top over fourth, third, or second, when all are Victorian. The reality is no advantage for a full 22 match h&a season for the minor premiers.
The final five was the only fair system, and meant middle ranked teams didn't play, as they shouldn't.
But the afl will chase money above fairness any day of the week.
Pies have no more advantage this year as to match scheduling as they did last year. Hence saints and cats eased off last year when top four spot was sewn up.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

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.

You're on some serious drugs if you think the AFL will ever implement a knockout finals system, where the top team loses 1 game and is then out of contention. That will never happen.

 

[Spider Eater]

I like your thinking Dan26
Some good points.

I like the NFL system too but in a 32 team comp it's a bit easier to accept a 10th ranked team knocking a top seed out in the second round of finals/playoffs... the idea of 10th getting the chance to eliminate 1st out of 16-18 teams doesn't sit well with me.

I think the current system is good without being perfect, there are subtle advantages to finishing higher up the ladder and often the premiers have to defeat all the other top 4 contenders along the way... which makes the premiership truly earnt.

 

[Dan26]

You're on some serious drugs if you think the AFL will ever implement a knockout finals system, where the top team loses 1 game and is then out of contention. That will never happen.

It happens now.

Think before you post.

 

[Dan26]

I like the NFL system too but in a 32 team comp it's a bit easier to accept a 10th ranked team knocking a top seed out in the second round of finals/playoffs... the idea of 10th getting the chance to eliminate 1st out of 16-18 teams doesn't sit well with me

Well, like I said, there are 3 distinct sets of advantages (the current final-8 has two sets of advantages)

1st and 2nd have a week off but their first match in week 2 is against a team (either 7-8-9 or 10) who played in week one.

3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th all have a week off too, but they play each other so they don't have the advantages that 1st and 2nd have.

7th, 8th, 9th and 10th all have to win 4 finals.

I know what you're saying about 1st losting to 10th in the second week, but that's knockout football. In 2007, top-placed Geelong came within 5 points of being eliminated by 6th, and therefore going out after one loss.

It's about finding the balance between what is marketable for the broadcasters and the fans. 10 teams making it is better for the fans. Does it REALLY matter if 10 make it instead of 8? Really? It will go down to eight after the first week anyway, and there's your 8 team finals series.

7th 8th 9th and 10th are essentially playing in the first week for
"7th and 8th seed"

I think the current system is good without being perfect, there are subtle advantages to finishing higher up the ladder and often the premiers have to defeat all the other top 4 contenders along the way... which makes the premiership truly earnt.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Like I said, there are 2 sets of advantages in the current system. 1,2,3,4 have the same advantage. 5,6,7,8 have the same. If you take into account home state advantage then there are 4 sets of advantages. 1st and 2nd..... then 3rd and 4th....... then 5th and 6th..... and lastly 7th and 8th.

But if you look at the knockout final-10 that I showed and you take into account home ground advantage, there are 5 sets of advantages.... 1st and 2nd..... 3rd and 4th...... 5th and 6th..... 7th and 8th.... and lastly 9th and 10th.

Also you know what doesn't sit well with me with the current system? The fact that last year 3rd and 4th were the teams that got the double chance. And if 3rd and 4th had then beaten 1st and 2nd in the Preliminary Final, both 1st and 2nd would have been elimimated after ONE LOSS, while 3rd and 4th would have playd in the Grand Final, after both of them lost in the first week, and both of them finished lower than 1st and 2nd. That's crap.

Double chances are so utterly awful. I despise them. Totally desopise them. They are agaisnt the very principle of what finals are supposed to be about - performing on the day. They are money making exercises aimed at making more finals that we don't need.

And the thing is everyone agrees that finals are about performing on the day. Even those than think they want a double chance system, admit that finals are about performing on the day, and not getting second chances, hence the Grand Final itself. And the Prelim.

I think people want a pure knockout system. They might not know it, but deep down, I think it's what the public wants. They just need to be convincied about the inadequacies of any double chance system that can still see the top team eliminated after one loss anyway! (like the current system)

 

[Father Jack]

Just look at the finals series as two sets of finals. Top four get two chances to get to the second bloc. that's all. works fine.

 

[Roby]

It happens now.

Think before you post.

The top teams get double chances, they are not out of contention. Many teams have lost the first only to make the make the GF later on.

There is no way for example Collingwood 1st would play Melbourne 10th, with the distinct possibility that Melbourne would knock the Pies out. That would be a farce.

 

[Dan26]

The top teams get double chances, they are not out of contention. Many teams have lost the first only to make the make the GF later on.

That's the whole point. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DOUBLE CHANCES. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting a second chance. You're right, many teams have lost first up, and went on to make the GF. Then those very teams who themselves lost, defeated a team higher on the ladder than them who was out after one loss. That is unacceptable.

It is totally unacceptable that 3rd and 4th can lose, get a second chance, then those two teams meet 1st and 2nd in the Prelim Final, and 1st and 2nd are eliminated after one loss (without getting a second chance) by the very teams who are lower on the ladder then them who were defeated two weeks earlier. THAT, is a farce.

ANY system that uses a double chance BUT still concludes with a knockout Grand Final and knockout Prelim Finals shouild be knockout all the way through. Logically.

If the double chances exists, it must exist either all the way through the finals (like the old Argus system from 1898-1930, where the top team could lose the Grand Final and get a second chance) or not at all. I don't think we want to see the top team getting a second chance if they lose the Grand Final, so the answer is not at all.

and I repeat ANY system that uses double chance BUT still concludes with a knockout Grand Final and knockout Prelim Finals should be knockout all the way through

There is no way for example Collingwood 1st would play Melbourne 10th, with the distinct possibility that Melbourne would knock the Pies out. That would be a farce.

It wouldn't be a farce at all. If you don't perform on the day, you are out. That's what finals should be about. It would be embarassing for the top team, but that's why you need to perform on the day. That's what finals are about - PERFORMING ON THE DAY.

To suggest finals are about "losing and getting a second chance" is so off-base with the very ideology of what finals are about that it's embarassing to have to address the notion of it.

 

[Father Jack]

Dan, you are mistaking opinion for fact again. Finals are about performing on the day, with different rewards/penalties for winning/losing depending on where you finished on the ladder. That is fact because that is the way it currently is.

 

[Dan26]

Dan, you are mistaking opinion for fact again. Finals are about performing on the day, with different rewards/penalties for winning/losing depending on where you finished on the ladder. That is fact because that is the way it currently is.

7 of the 9 finals are knckout. The Grand Final is knockout. The Preliminary Finals are knockout.

The top 2 teams both need to win a knockout Prelim and a knockout Grand Final to win the premierships.

Despite a double chance existing in the first week (which, last year went to 3rd and 4th, while 1st and 2nd faced knockout themselves on Prelim Final night), the ideology which finals live by, is that you need to perform on the day.

The double chance is the equivalent of a genetic mutation, that evolved incorrectly. With natural selection, it will eventually evolve back into the pure knockout system that it is very close to being anyway (how's that for an analogy ).

And that's the whole point. It's essentially a knockout sysrem ANYWAY. The top two teams can go out after one loss NOW! Yes NOW in the current system. It's only a genetic mutation preventing the system from reverting to it's true ideological format.

 

[Roby]

That's the whole point. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DOUBLE CHANCES. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting a second chance. You're right, many teams have lost first up, and went on to make the GF. Then those very teams who themselves lost, defeated a team higher on the ladder than them who was out after one loss. That is unacceptable.

But by your logic finals is about performing on the day and therefore if you cannot perform on the day you should not be awarded the win.

It is totally unacceptable that 3rd and 4th can lose, get a second chance, then those two teams meet 1st and 2nd in the Prelim Final, and 1st and 2nd are eliminated after one loss (without getting a second chance) by the very teams who are lower on the ladder then them who were defeated two weeks earlier. THAT, is a farce.

Totally unacceptable? Totally? Says who, you?

ANY system that uses a double chance BUT still concludes with a knockout Grand Final and knockout Prelim Finals shouild be knockout all the way through. Logically.

You use the word logically but ironically you don't let it run its recourse. So according to your logic, a competition that has a Home and Away season should not logically have a knock-out system to decide the eventual winner, right?

If the double chances exists, it must exist either all the way through the finals (like the old Argus system from 1898-1930, where the top team could lose the Grand Final and get a second chance) or not at all. I don't think we want to see the top team getting a second chance if they lose the Grand Final, so the answer is not at all.

Read previous.

and I repeat ANY system that uses double chance BUT still concludes with a knockout Grand Final and knockout Prelim Finals should be knockout all the way through

Repeat, yes I know, how interesting you feel the need to qualify it. More like a bludgeoning stick is your post rather than a intelligent argument. Read previous.

It wouldn't be a farce at all. If you don't perform on the day, you are out. That's what finals should be about. It would be embarassing for the top team, but that's why you need to perform on the day. That's what finals are about - PERFORMING ON THE DAY.

What is that a rhyme? Is this what your basing the finals system, on how well you can make the words sing on the page?

To suggest finals are about "losing and getting a second chance" is so off-base with the very ideology of what finals are about that it's embarassing to have to address the notion of it.

Look at wide range of sports and their competitions and they all have a system of qualification for the finals which is peculiar to them and it then also changes come the finals. The evaluation of the qualifcation systems set up around the world are not in line with a parallelistic system.

The current system of the AFL allows that top half teams do not have monopoly. By massively rewarding the top 4 teams it allows teams to fight for those top positions all year around allowing for more competition and thus entertaining games for the H & A rounds. It still gives the middle teams at a chance at making the finals for most of the year and usually till the end of the season.

Your whole argument is a logical fallacy, (a word you like to use so often but seldom adhere to), as you totally neglect the H & A fixture which is antithesis of the finals. Really, according to you, we should not even have a H & A season all together and just have a knock-out competition from the onset. Now that would actually make logical sense according to your argument... unfortunately...

 

[gPhonque]

That's the whole point. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DOUBLE CHANCES. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting a second chance.

The finals are not the entire season Dan.

That is where you are (still!) missing the entire point of what our game is about.

What you are advocating (knockout finals) is not a true reflection of our entire season.

And if it's not a true reflection of our entire season, then why do we bother playing 22 rounds of H&A football?

Yes - the most "pure" way to find the champion team of the season would be for every team to play each other twice, and then award the top team the premiership. But that's not what our game is about.

Neither is our game about a knockout finals series that has virtually no relevance to the H&A season.

So there go your 2 preferred options into the trash.

That's why we need an "in-between" option - a finals series that rewards performances throughout the H&A season. And it CAN be done Dan. It worked for years under the Final 5. Nobody complained about the Final 5. EVER. People still talk of it as being by far the best system we've ever had. And it was.

I'm not suggesting we revert to a Final 5 (greed makes that impossible unfortunately) but am I suggesting we need to find a finals system that offers similar rewards to what the Final 5 did to the top placed teams.

I agree with you that our current system is a farce.

As for your argument that if we have double chances, they should include the Grand Final - we've had this argument before (it seems like a lifetime ago! ) and nobody agreed with you then, and nobody agrees with you now. If you can't understand why, then that's your problem.

 

[Dan26]

You use the word logically but ironically you don't let it run its recourse. So according to your logic, a competition that has a Home and Away season should not logically have a knock-out system to decide the eventual winner, right?

Very true. Any finals system is inherantlry illogical as it overrides 22 weeks of success. I define finals as matches that have a direct affect on winning the premiership, while home and away game are a qualifying procedure, that have an "INDIRECT" affect.

The irony is that the EPL, which awards the premiership to the top team actually does have finals. Because EVERY match has a DIRECT affect on the title, all 380 games ARE finals. They are not a qualifying procedure to win the EPL title. The 380 games themelves ARE effectively a giant round-robin finals series tournamnent where the winner finishes top. They are finals. They are not a qualifying procedure to win the EPL tite.

So, logically, yes LOGICALLY a competition that has a H&A season should not logically have a knockout out system (or any finals sysem) to decide the winner. That is where marketing, broadcasters, and history come to the equation, which is why we have finals and always will.

Finals aren't fair - they never have been. BUT they are exciting, they are marketable, and they keep the season alive for many teams who would otherwise not be able to win the flag in "top wins the flag system"

So, I support the use of a finals series.

But that's not the issue. We all know and accept that a finals series will always be part of the competition. THE ISSUE IS HOW THE FINALS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED. Not whether we should have a finals series - that's a totally seperate question unrelated to any of this.

I believe that given we have a finals series, and given that that finals series concludes with a knockout Grand Final and Preliminary Final. And given that it is universally accepted that finals are about performing on the day. And given that under the current system, the top 2 teams can be eliminated after one loss anyway, that double chances should be rid of, and never used ever again. Double chances are not what finals are about. Finals are about performing on the day.

Look at wide range of sports and their competitions and they all have a system of qualification for the finals which is peculiar to them and it then also changes come the finals. The evaluation of the qualifcation systems set up around the world are not in line with a parallelistic system.

Yes all qualifying procedures are different. Some, like the AFL have 176 matches that no matter how many you win you cannot win the premiership and it comes down to the direct effect of the 9 finals.

Others like the EPL have 380 games that all have a direct effect because that itself is essentially a giant seaosn long finals series featuring all 20 teams over 380 games.

The AFL finals series goes for 9 matches with 176 games of qualifying.

The EPL finals go for 380 games with ZERO games of qualifying.

Every sporting league is different. But given that we all seem to accept and enjoy that a month long finals series is exciting, and should remain, the question is how should it be constructed? LOGICALLY, knockout is the only logical way to construct it, given that it concludes with a knockout GF and a knockout PF anyway.

The current system of the AFL allows that top half teams do not have monopoly. By massively rewarding the top 4 teams it allows teams to fight for those top positions all year around allowing for more competition and thus entertaining games for the H & A rounds. It still gives the middle teams at a chance at making the finals for most of the year and usually till the end of the season.

You don't need a double chance to reward the top teams.

The NFL reward the top 4 teams with 3 things:

1.) a week off
2.) Home ground advantage
3.) playing lower seeded teams

Under the knockout final 10, I proposed there were 3 distinct sets of advantages. The current final 8 has only two.

This idiotic fallacy that you need double chances to give a team an advantage is total bullshit. If Geelong and St.Kila had lost their Prelims last year they wouldn't have got a second chance. So, why have them at all?

As the NFL prove, you can have a total knockout system, and still give plenty of advantages to the higher placed teams, by having a week off, home ground advanatge and the advantage of playing lower seeded opponents.

 

[Dan26]

As for your argument that if we have double chances, they should include the Grand Final - we've had this argument before (it seems like a lifetime ago! ) and nobody agreed with you then, and nobody agrees with you now. If you can't understand why, then that's your problem.

Rubbish. Absloute rubbish.

My point, was that IF we have a double chance it should exist either A) All the way through the finals, or B.) Not at all. Does that mean I want a double chance all through the finals ? NO.

The old Argus system used it all the way through the finals, so that if the top team lost the Grand Final, they still got a second chance.

My argument is that IF the double chance is to be used that Argus system is the only acceptable method.

Does that mean I want that methOd? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

No one wants that method anymore. People want a knockout Grand Final, because that is what is exciting. People like having the season on the line in one game. The NFL have it right, with a pure knockout system, that still gives advantages to the top teams.

Even the final -5 (which will never come back in, so you might as well give up) can have the top team eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final. That's not an "in between" option (as you put it.)

The ONLY in between option is the Argus sytem, which no one wants, including me.

What's so in between about the final-5? In 1982 Richmond, finished top, they BEAT 3rd-placed Carlton, who received a second chance. Then 3rd-placed Carlton defeated top-placed Richmond in the Grand Final with the Tigers being eliminated after one loss.

How is that an "in between" option? That's a joke.

The fact that we conclude the finals with a knockout Grand Final (which we still did under the final-5) means that the whole finals series should logically and sensibly be knockout. That's the only way to construct a finals series that concludes with knockout games anyway.

You presumbaly agree that the current system is a farce because the top team can go out after one loss in the Prelim, to a lower team who got a second chance in the in the first week.

Thats exactly the same as the final-5 except that the one loss that eliminates the top team is in the Grand Final. Same diff. It's exactly the same in principle. Exactly. There is no difference whatsoever.

I used to think like you. I wrote letters to the AFL and everything proposing "double chance" systems. I don't know when the moment of clarity came, but it took about 5 years, where I realised that I was on the wrong track. I sincerely hope I can convince you one day and your moment of clarity will be like mine (like I said it took me about 5 years) but I can honestly tell you, knockout is the only acceptable way to construct a finals series that concludes with a knockout GF and a knockout PF anyway. It just is. It's what finals are about. Knockout is the essence of finals football.

Double chances are money making exercises, that create more finals than are needed.

I am normally very open-minded, but on this I am absolutely steadfast in my belief. I am totally convinced that I am right, and that's from over 20 years of "studying" this and being interested in it. And as i said my opinion wasn't always this way. I came to it after years and years. I used to think like you. Believe it or not!

My opinion changed from exactly what yours is, to what I currently believe. I am not 99% sure. I am 100% sure my way is the best way. I know it. It's probably the only thing I do know.

 

[Roby]

So, logically, yes LOGICALLY a competition that has a H&A season should not logically have a knockout out system (or any finals sysem) to decide the winner. That is where marketing, broadcasters, and history come to the equation, which is why we have finals and always will.

Finals aren't fair - they never have been. BUT they are exciting, they are marketable, and they keep the season alive for many teams who would otherwise not be able to win the flag in "top wins the flag system"

So, I support the use of a finals series.

You don't need a double chance to reward the top teams.

This were the contradiction lies. You just agreed and ackowledeged that the finals is set up for "marketing, broadcasters, and history come to the equation, which is why we have finals and always will." We know that we don't need to award a double chance in order to award the top 4 teams. It's done so that the top half of competition doesn't have a monopoly. Who is to say that once you get high enough on the ladder you start resting players and because many teams will have secured finals by round 11. In fact the top 8 rarely change after half way through the season. Basically you would have a plethora of non-event games for the second half of the season which is akin to 'tanking' and would question the legitimacy of results and the thus the competition.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

The current system is excellent Dan, not sure why you want to go so far the other way, as in bringing in more knock-out games earlier....

Its very easy to have 1 extra week for 2 extra teams and retain the current system.

No need to complicate things at all.

The double chance early in the finals is something that we've always had. It ensures the top teams should still get through to the latter stages making for better matches, without handing them a GF berth for nothing.

This isn't the NFL, its the AFL.

 

[Dan26]

This were the contradiction lies. You just agreed and ackowledeged that the finals is set up for "marketing, broadcasters, and history come to the equation, which is why we have finals and always will.

Yes I have no problem acknowledging that. Finals are basically a marketing idea. They've never been "fair." We have finals to keep the season alive for teams that would otherwise have no chance of finishing top.

We know that we don't need to award a double chance in order to award the top 4 teams. It's done so that the top half of competition doesn't have a monopoly.

No. It's done as a money making exercise to play two more finals than what we should have

Double chances are not needed to give the top teams an advantage. In the NFL the top 4 teams all have a week off. 5 through 12 then play knockout games to see who progresses to the next stage to meet the teams with a week off.

And of course those teams with the week off all get home field advantage.

Isn't that enough?

Surely that's enough. Surely we don't need a double chance when the top teams can be out after one loss even with the double chance system!

 

[Roby]

Yes I have no problem acknowledging that. Finals are basically a marketing idea. They've never been "fair." We have finals to keep the season alive for teams that would otherwise have no chance of finishing top.



No. It's done as a money making exercise to play two more finals than what we should have

Double chances are not needed to give the top teams an advantage. In the NFL the top 4 teams all have a week off. 5 through 12 then play knockout games to see who progresses to the next stage to meet the teams with a week off.

And of course those teams with the week off all get home field advantage.

Isn't that enough?

Surely that's enough. Surely we don't need a double chance when the top teams can be out after one loss even with the double chance system!

I've already explained why... you seem to ignore it.

Put simply, no, it is not enough.

Reasons have already been stated and you have not argued against them.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

Nah the old top 5 was the reason we had so many one sided Grand Finals. The top 8 works fine.

If you want to reward the minor premiers give them a financial incentive.

 

[Dan26]

I've already explained why... you seem to ignore it.

Put simply, no, it is not enough.

Reasons have already been stated and you have not argued against them.

Yes it IS enough. It's more than enough.,

It's enough in the NFL.

What is it you're against? You like the current system, which means you like the fact that the team can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Fianl and Grand Final. So you like the fact that the top team doesn't get a double chance. So, do you like double chances or do you not? Which is it?

You obviously like the knockout nature of finals because the "perform on the day or you're eliminated" apsect is what teams experience in the Prelim and Grand Finals.

So, why, oh why do you think that a pure knockout finals series isn't ennough of an advantage to the top teams, when it clearly is?

You're caught in the mind-bending shockwave where you think that a double chance helps WHEN THE TOP TEAM CAN CURRNELTY BE ELIMINATED IN THE PF AND GF WITHOUT GETTING A SECOIND CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, if the bold bit can happen now (whch it can) why do we need double chances at all, when they clearly and obviously go against the ideological principle of what finals are about?

Don't you thik the NFL system where the top team earns THREE (count them three) advantages over the lower opponents....:

1. a week off
2. home grond advanatge
3. the advanatge of playing thw lowest seeded remaning team

... isn't that enough? Don't tell me they need a double chance, because our own Preliminary Final situation telels us that the top team clearly doesn't need or in most cases even get one. St.Kilda didn't last year.

Knockout is clearly the way to go. We basically have knckout now. It's only a slight mutation at the start of the finals series that needs to be fixed. From week 2 on, it's fine.

I despise double chances. I hate them wiht a passion. They go against everything that finals should be, and you should agree.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yes it IS enough. It's more than enough.,

It's enough in the NFL.

What is it you're against? You like the current system, which means you like the fact that the team can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Fianl and Grand Final. So you like the fatc that the top tema doesn'tget a double chance. So, do you like double chances or do you mot? Which is it?

You obviously like the knockout nature of finals because the "perform on the day or you're eliminated" apsect is what teams experience in the Prelim and Grand Finals.

So, why, oh why do you think that a pure knockout finals series isn't ennough of an advantage to the top teams, when it clearly is?

You're caught in the mind-bending shockwave where you think that a double chance helps WHEN THE TOP TEAM CAN CURRNELTY BE ELIMINATED IN THE PF AND GF WITHOUT GETTING A SECOIND CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, if the bold bit can happen now (whch it can) why do we need double chances at all, when they clearly and obviously go against the ideological principle of what finals are about?

Don't you thik the NFL system where the top team earns THREE (count them three) advantages over the lower opponents....:

1. a week off
2. home grond advanatge
3. the advanatge of playing thw lowest seeded remaning team

... isn't that enough? Don't tell me they need a double chance, because our own Preliminary Final situation telels us that the top team clearly doesn't need or in most cases even get one. St.Kilda didn't last year.

Knockout is clearly the way to go. We basically have knckout now. It's only a slight mutation at the start of the finals series that needs to be fixed. From week 2 on, it's fine.

I despise double chances. I hate them wiht a passion. They go against everything that finals should be, and you should agree.

The top 8 works fine because it gives the top 4 teams a double chance. The team that loses in week 1 gets to play the next week in a knockout game against a lower ranked side and the team that wins gets a week off (effectively another chance as they progress two weeks having only won one game.)

The current system is the fairest system we have for rewarding each team in the top 8 based on their ranking. Teams 1 & 2 get a double-chance/week off and a home game. Teams 3 & 4 get the double-chance/week off. Teams 6 & 7 get a home game.

If you want to reward the minor premiers give them a bonus payout to either the club and/or players.

 

[Father Jack]

Actually, I remember people used to complain about the Final 5 simply because the team getting the week off before the Grand Final would generally thump the living suitcase out of the team that slogged their way in via the Prelim. Looking at the 80s (from when i personally can remember) we seemed to end up with one blowout after another. Even the so-called close '89 never looked like being anything but a Hawks win (ironically though, it was the Cats (who'd played in the prelim, in a thrashing of the Bombers) who threatened to run over the rested team, but that may have been more because there were several Hawks who required hospitalisation by the end). Quite often you'd have a team that had played three tough finals in three weeks up against a team that had played one in the same period. If that happened today I'm betting we'd see some major blowouts in the second half of the big one.

I like the fact that both teams come in the GF on relatively level footing, we have been spoilt with some of the Grand Finals we've had over the past decade.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Actually, I remember people used to complain about the Final 5 simply because the team getting the week off before the Grand Final would generally thump the living suitcase out of the team that slogged their way in via the Prelim. Looking at the 80s (from when i personally can remember) we seemed to end up with one blowout after another. Even the so-called close '89 never looked like being anything but a Hawks win (ironically though, it was the Cats (who'd played in the prelim, in a thrashing of the Bombers) who threatened to run over the rested team, but that may have been more because there were several Hawks who required hospitalisation by the end). Quite often you'd have a team that had played three tough finals in three weeks up against a team that had played one in the same period. If that happened today I'm betting we'd see some major blowouts in the second half of the big one.

I like the fact that both teams come in the GF on relatively level footing, we have been spoilt with some of the Grand Finals we've had over the past decade.

Exactly right. We don't want to go back to the blow-out Grand Finals of the 80's with one team having played one game in three weeks. The GF's of the last decade have been great in comparison to the 80's/early-mid 90's. The AFL has got the finals system right after the farcical initial final 8 set-up.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

So, why, oh why do you think that a pure knockout finals series isn't ennough of an advantage to the top teams, when it clearly is?

You're caught in the mind-bending shockwave where you think that a double chance helps WHEN THE TOP TEAM CAN CURRNELTY BE ELIMINATED IN THE PF AND GF WITHOUT GETTING A SECOIND CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, if the bold bit can happen now (whch it can) why do we need double chances at all, when they clearly and obviously go against the ideological principle of what finals are about?

We have them to insure the top teams against an early exit if they are upset in the first weeks. Anything can go wrong on a day, you could lose 3 players to injury in the 1st quarter for example. They have played well enough to earn that double chance.

Knockout is clearly the way to go. We basically have knckout now. It's only a slight mutation at the start of the finals series that needs to be fixed. From week 2 on, it's fine.

Exactly. It works now. We have double chances in the first couple of weeks for the top teams, it ensures they get 2 cracks at getting to the pointy end of the season.

It doesnt need to be fixed. It works beautifully. I can understand your NFL style of setup, but ours is better and rewards the better teams fairly.

I despise double chances. I hate them wiht a passion. They go against everything that finals should be, and you should agree.

Everyone should agree with you then eh? Sticking true to form then Dan.
You've successfully hijacked yet another thread with your over-complicated essays and your stubborn refusal to accept anything other than your own ideas.

It aint broke.
It doesnt need fixing.