The Finals System

[soreplums]

Ladder positions after round 22 should include good prize money to keep clubs not making the finals interested in performing well and take away from tanking.

 

[Dan26]

We have them to insure the top teams against an early exit if they are upset in the first weeks.

In a knockout final-10 the top team can't be eliminated in the first week. They can only be eliminated in the second week onwards. Just like the top team can in the current final-8. In the current final-8 they can only be eliminated in the second week onwards.

There goes that theory of yours.

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.

Under the current final-8, anything can go wrong on Preliminary Final day or Grand Final day. You could lose 3 players to injury in the first quarter for example. Obviously you must hate the current system then because the top team can be eliminated after one loss after suffering bad luck with injuries.

Kinda blows your theory out of the water again.

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.

Finals are about performing on the day - not getting second chances.

What's wrong with the top team facing elimination in a knockout final-10 in the second week onwards. The top team faces elimination in the current final-8 in the second week onwards.

Double chances are against the very ideology that finals are about. That is a fact. I can't stress that enough. You know that finals are about performing on the day. You know what is at stake for the top team on Preliminary Final day. So, why defend a double chance when YOU YOURSELF LIKE KNOCKOUT FOOTBALL.

That's the irony. Everyone likes knockout football. Everyone likes the "season on the line" aspect of finals. That's what makes them exciting!

If you like the Grand Final and you like the Prelim, then you ar a lover of knockout football. Embrace knockout football! Don't fall for the trap of accepting double chances because you are used to them. No one likes double chances. They might think they do, but they don't. Everyone loves the "on the day" aspect of knockout finals, and you're a liar if you say otherwise.

It aint broke.
It doesnt need fixing.

What flawed logic is that? If it can be done better, it should be done better.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

It happens now.

Think before you post.

Not the way you're suggesting. You're suggesting that the top team could lose their first game, and be out. Out of all the suggestions in this thread, this would have to be the stupidest.

 

[Dan26]

Not the way you're suggesting. You're suggesting that the top team could lose their first game, and be out. Out of all the suggestions in this thread, this would have to be the stupidest.

So, you're suggesting the NFL play-offs are "stupid" are you. Get real! That comment alone is utter stupidity.

In a knockout final-10, the top team can lose their first game (which is in the second week) and be eliminated.

They CANNOT be eliminated in the first week. It is impossible. They have a bye.

Under the curent final-8, the top team can be eliminated in the second week onwards. They cannot be eliminated in the first week.

Under both systems, the top team can be eliminated in the second week onwards, and under both systems the top team CANNOT be eliminated in the first week.

And what difference does it make if you out after one loss with no double chance and it's your first final or your second final???

If St.Kilda had lost to the Doggies on Preliminary Final night last year they would have been out after one loss. Sure it was their second final, not their first, but so what??? They'd still be eliminated after one loss. What difference does it make if it's ther second final, or first? There is still no double chance.

The very system which you are defending sees the top team facing elimination after one loss.

EMBRACE knockout football. It's what you love. It's what we all love. Don't defend a system that allows for a second chance for losing, when that very same system has the great knockout aspects that I love and everyone else does too.

Embrace a pure knockout system, for it's the only proper way to conduct a finals series.

 

[Father Jack]

I think the NFL play-offs are worse than ours. Not stupid, but not as good.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

So, you're suggesting the NFL play-offs are "stupid" are you. Get real! That comment alone is utter stupidity.

In a knockout final-10, the top team can lose their first game (which is in the second week) and be eliminated.

They CANNOT be eliminated in the first week. It is impossible. They have a bye.

Never say they could be. I said "their first game".

Under the curent final-8, the top team can be eliminated in the second week onwards. They cannot be eliminated in the first week.

Under the current system, to top team must win 3 games to win the flag, just like in your system. However, they can lose their first game, and still win 3 games, and thus the flag. In you system, they cannot.

Under both systems, the top team can be eliminated in the second week onwards, and under both systems the top team CANNOT be eliminated in the first week.

And what difference does it make if you out after one loss with no double chance and it's your first final or your second final???

If there's no difference, then why change?

The very system which you are defending sees the top team facing elimination after one loss.

I'm not defending the current system at all. I'm simply saying that a total knock out system is ridiculous, and that the current system is better than the one you're proposing.

EMBRACE knockout football. It's what you love. It's what we all love. Don't defend a system that allows for a second chance for losing, when that very same system has the great knockout aspects that I love and everyone else does too.

Embrace a pure knockout system, for it's the only proper way to conduct a finals series.

If that were the case, it would have been implemented long ago. Fact is, very few people want it. Trying to tell me that it's "what I love", when clearly it's not... well to borrow a line from The Castle, you're dreamin'.

 

[gPhonque]

Interesting thread. So many people with different opinions, and different suggestions.

The current Final 8 system (which I hate) is infinitely better than Dan's suggestion of pure knockout finals. If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with what we've got every day of the week. The more advantages we give the top teams, the better, and the more the finals will reflect the H&A season.

I still think (as I've argued throughout this thread) that we need to do MORE to reward the top teams, but anyway...

Dan's suggestion of pure knockout is just dumb, doesn't reflect the H&A series anywhere near enough, and is clearly the idea of a person who simply, as much as he thinks he does, often doesn't understand what it is that makes our game what it is.

As for people saying the current system is the reason we have close Grand Finals, that's rubbish as well. Apart from the Sydney Vs West Coast games, last year's GF, and 2002 Bris Vs Coll, where are all these close Grand Finals!?

2008 - Hawthorn by 36 pts
2007 - Geelong by 119 pts
2004 - Port Adelaide by 40 pts
2003 - Brisbane by 50 pts
2001 - Brisbane 26 pts
2000 - Essendon by 50 pts

And that's just the current Final 8 system.

So under the current system, we've had 4 close-ish Grand Finals, and two of them were when West Coast and Sydney were in that phase where they kept beating each other by a point etc...

So that's a rubbish argument.

At the same time, the argument that the ideal finals system will create great Grand Finals is also rubbish. We've been lucky the last few years (apart from perhaps 2006) in that the two best teams of the season HAVE gotten through to the Grand Final.... and yet, more than half of those Grand Finals have been blowouts anyway.

I don't care about creating "great Grand Finals." I care about getting the two best teams of the season (the ENTIRE season, not just the last 4 weeks) INTO the Grand Final, and not being knocked out in the Prelim after one loss. Once they're in the Grand Final, they're on their own.

As Allan Jeans (I think it was) said: "It's murder day on Grand Final day."

And THAT is just one of the beautiful parts of our game.

 

[Father Jack]

08 was only 26 points, and wasn't over til the second half of the last quarter, mainly because it was Geelong who were behind and always a chance to get up. I'd say that half the Grand Finals from the past decade were competitive up til the last quarter. Good strike rate, that.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

In a knockout final-10 the top team can't be eliminated in the first week. They can only be eliminated in the second week onwards. Just like the top team can in the current final-8. In the current final-8 they can only be eliminated in the second week onwards.

There goes that theory of yours.

What theory? I'm only defending the current system and refuting your claims that getting knocked out by another top team in the prelim is the same as getting knocked out in the first week by a poor team.

Under the current final-8, anything can go wrong on Preliminary Final day or Grand Final day. You could lose 3 players to injury in the first quarter for example. Obviously you must hate the current system then because the top team can be eliminated after one loss after suffering bad luck with injuries.

Kinda blows your theory out of the water again.

Again, not my theory, or even a theory at all. Its just the system that we have in place and it works. Stop plucking sections of my posts and twisting them so you can try and push your stupid American style agenda.

My point was: The current system gives the top teams the safety net of not getting knocked out if they are upset in their first match. Thats it. If they survive, they get a nice break and then a home final but lose their double chance.

Having 1st play 8th or 10th in a knockout game in the first of their series is just ludicrous!! Regardless of the possibility of an upsetm the finals would be much more one-sided....

What you prefer to watch if the 8 went in like it is now?

Coll v Haw, Geelong v Carl, SK v Sydney & WB v Freo
or
Coll v WB, Geelong v SK, Sydney v Carlton & Freo v Haw?

We get the oppurtunity to see the top 4 go at each other for 3 of the 4 weeks, much better finals and much better matches. The current system generally matches teams up with other teams at a similar height on the ladder.

I honestly cant fathom how you cant see that the current system is a fantastic way of proportionately rewarding the top teams and providing the best games for the fans.

Double chances are against the very ideology that finals are about. That is a fact. I can't stress that enough. You know that finals are about performing on the day. You know what is at stake for the top team on Preliminary Final day. So, why defend a double chance when YOU YOURSELF LIKE KNOCKOUT FOOTBALL.

That's the irony. Everyone likes knockout football. Everyone likes the "season on the line" aspect of finals. That's what makes them exciting!

If you like the Grand Final and you like the Prelim, then you ar a lover of knockout football. Embrace knockout football! Don't fall for the trap of accepting double chances because you are used to them. No one likes double chances. They might think they do, but they don't. Everyone loves the "on the day" aspect of knockout finals, and you're a liar if you say otherwise.

You could of fooled me, read this thread, you've got about 1 or 2 supporters. I am just thankful the rest of us 'idiot' majority we have wonderful visionaries like yourself who know how we really think...

I like both mate. And the current system has both.

I agree, knockout Prelims are great, so is a knockout GF, so are knock out Semis! But we also have to have a fair system.
If my team finished top, I would want them to get a chance to get to at least the second week. If they lost their first two games, I'd be livid but could accept why they went out.

I'm only defending the double chance for the top teams first games! I believe they earn that right by winning more games than the teams below them...

What flawed logic is that? If it can be done better, it should be done better.

Thats the attitude Andy D and his lap dog have had for the past 5 years, look where that has got us...

Also, your posts are your opinion Dan. Not fact. You seem to struggle with telling the difference between the two.

 

[Dan26]

The current Final 8 system (which I hate) is infinitely better than Dan's suggestion of pure knockout finals.

Nah, that's rubbish with all due respect. Pure knockout finals are the essence of what finals should be. Why is that so hard to understand? The Grand Final is knockout FFS.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with what we've got every day of the week. The more advantages we give the top teams, the better, and the more the finals will reflect the H&A season.

This is where my point is not getting through. You are not listening.

YOU DO NOT NEED A DOUBLE CHANCE TO GIVE ADVANTAGES TO THE TOP TEAMS.

I'll say it again.

YOU DO NOT NEED A DOUBLE CHANCE TO GIVE ADVANTAGES TO THE TOP TEAMS.

How many times does it need to be said? 10? A million?

The current finals 8 has two sets of advantages. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th all have the same advantage. 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th all have the same advantage. If you use home ground advantage as a means of giving teams an advantage there are four sets of advantages - 1st and 2nd..... then 3rd and 4th..... then 5th and 6th.... then 7th and 8th.

The proposed knockout final-10 has 3 sets of advantages. 1st and 2nd..... then 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th...... then 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th.

If use use home ground advantage as a means of giving teams an advantage then the knockout final-10 has FIVE sets of advanatges - 1st and 2nd.... then 3rd and 4th.... then 5th and 6th..... then 7th and 8th.... then 9th and 10th.


1st and 2nd
These two teams get a week off, and have the advantage of home games until the Grand Final. They also have the advantage of playing an opponent who played in week one, and they also always play the lowest remaining seeded teams.

3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
These teams, also have a week off but they all play each other (3v6 4v5) so there is no advantage of playing a team who played the week before. 3rd and 4th have home ground advantage obviously.

7th, 8th 9th 10th
These teams all have to win 4 consecutive finals. 7th and 8th host 10th and 9th respectively so they are at home but then they are away for the rest of the finals series. 9th and 10th are away for the entire finals series.

The top teams deserve an advanatge, I agree. Knockout systems still give them that.

Dan's suggestion of pure knockout is just dumb.

It's not dumb at all. I mean Jesus, the current system allows for the top team to be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim and the Grand Final. The final-5 allowed or that too. The top team could be eliminated with no double chance in the final-5 in the Grand Final. Double chances clearly do not support the ideology of what finals are about. That is abundantly and unarguably clear.

What you are suggesting with your silly comment, is that the NFL system is dumb. It clearly isn't. Their system concludes (like ours) with a knockout decider precded by two knockout games between the last 4 teams.

Sensibly, because of this, they also make sure that the whole damn play-off series is knockout, whilst still giving big advantages to the higher seeded teams. See! It can be done. And it works! Believe it or not! The top seeds have a week off, home ground advantage and always play the lower seeded teams

How remarkable that they manage to advantage the higher placed teams and retain a knockout format as well. It's not hard.

Finals are murder. It's season on the line stuff. The whole finals series should be like that, because that's the beauty of our game - knockout finals are what the public traditionally loves. It's a tradition of Aussie Rules that people love and support knockout football. That's how the Grand Final itself came to be.

So embrace knockout football gPhoneque. It's the essence of finals. Finals are a tradition in Aussie Rules Football. And knockout finals are the traditional heart and soul of what we consider true finals to be. That's why they are called FINALS. Because they are final. Lose and you're out. That's what "final" means.

I am 100% certain I am right on this. I just know. It's the way finals should be and the public loves knockout football.

Be objective. Do you honestly believe if you were born in the USA and had grown up with the NFL that you would hate that play-off system and you'd be proposing a change to a unique double chance format that was only used in Australia?

Clearly, you wouldn't feel that way. Your opinion is clearly based on what you've grown up with. You know as well as I do that if you were American you would support the NFL system. That's why I know you're not objective. Step away and look at the situation from the outside.

Knockout is the essence of play-off/finals football. It always has been and always will be.

 

[Dan26]

I'm only defending the double chance for the top teams first games! I believe they earn that right by winning more games than the teams below them...
.

Why, mate why? Why just the first game? So you support being able to be eliminated in your second game with no double chance?

Seriously you're all over the place. On the one hand you support a double chance. On the other you support no double chance as long as it's a teams second final.

Why can't they be eliminated in their first final, provided they have a week off? Whats so different obout being eliminated in your first or second final, provided there is no double chance? You're still out after one loss. What's the difference?

If the top team has a week off under the final-10 (which they do), it means they CANNOT be eliminated in the first week. It's impossible. They can be eliminated in the second week onwards.

But that is identical to the current final-8 where the top team cannot be eliminated in the first week, but they can be eliminated from the second week onwards.

If you support the top team not being able to be eliminated in the first week, but being able to be eliminated from the second week onwards, then a knockout final-10 is for you.

We essentially have a knockout system anyway. It just needs to be refined to be totally knockout.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

This is where my point is not getting through. You are not listening.

Dont worry, your point is getting through. Loud and clear. Its just extremely unpopular.

If people disagree with you, doesn't mean they dont understand you.

How many times does it need to be said? 10? A million?

Something tells me you will do you best to reach that target...

So, you're suggesting the NFL play-offs are "stupid" are you. Get real! That comment alone is utter stupidity.

You said the AFL finals are stupid...

Why, mate why? Why just the first game? So you support being able to be eliminated in your second game with no double chance?

Yes. As I said, and many others have also said, the double chance is when there are 8/10 teams left and 4/5 weeks left.

The top teams earn the right to drop their first game.

Seriously you're all over the place. On the one hand you support a double chance. On the other you support no double chance as long as it's a teams second final.

No I'm not. I've supported the same option since day dot. I think a 10 teams finals series in inevitable and that the following system retains the great one we already have.

Week 1

1 & 2 get the week off

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

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

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

Weeks 2-5

Exactly as they are now.

Why can't they be eliminated in their first final, provided they have a week off? Whats so different obout being eliminated in your first or second final, provided there is no double chance? You're still out after one loss. What's the difference?

As Amber Guzzler said, if there is no difference, why the hell are you so obsessed with changing the way it is now??!

If you support the top team not being able to be eliminated in the first week, but being able to be eliminated from the second week onwards, then a knockout final-10 is for you.

Reading comprehension isn't big with you is it.

I support, as do many in this thread, the top teams not being able to be eliminated in their FIRST GAME.

So no, a knockout final 10 isnt for me. Trying to speak for me again?

Listen, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this and the system works well enough for the NFL. But why does it necessarily work for our game?

The AFL finals over the past 8-10 years have been excellent.

Its been fun and I've no doubt you'll try to deconstruct this post but I'm done arguing with you. Mainly because Im not too sure you are capable of
a- taking in anothers opinion &
b- differentiating your own opinion from fact.

Once again, you've successfully hijacked what was a pretty good thread.

 

[Koutafidamedis]

I'll be a bit different here and agree with Dan's system. I love the concept of pure knockout finals (pretty much every other finals system world-wide).

I would much rather finish on top get a week off then have to beat 8th and 4th position to make the G.F rather than finish top and have beat 4th then get a week off before playing 3rd.

Dan's system seems to make it much easier for 1st to get to the G.F which seems to be what everyone in this thread wants.

The only thing I would do differently to Dan is re-name the Prelim's and call them Semi's.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

I would much rather finish on top get a week off then have to beat 8th and 4th position to make the G.F rather than finish top and have beat 4th then get a week off before playing 3rd.

The only issue with that is the increased possibility of one-sided finals, especially in the first week...

We still want to see good matches...

 

[Spider Eater]

Any sport that has more than 50% of the competition making finals/playoffs is a joke. Finals are unique with big crowds and the sense that the occasion is rare and earnt... diluting the finals to allow 10 of 16-18 in would make the whole occasion less unique and quiet common and inturn we would see finals played before regular season standard crowds... of which has already been deteriorated by the final 8.

I have no problem with the knock-out system idea just the % of teams that get the opportunity... why not a top 6?

(Actually this is similar if not the same to the NFL)

Week 1
1st Elimination 4th v 5th
2nd Elimination 3rd v 6th

Week 2
1st Semi 1st v Winner 1st Elimination
2nd Semi 2nd v Winner 2nd Elimination

Week 3
Grand Final Winner 1st Semi v Winner 2nd Semi

 

[Father Jack]

I'd rather the extra games thanks.

 

[McCrann]

And there - right there! - is the answer!

Play 34 games.

Why not?

Soccer players play up to 50 games a season. Rugby League plays a 26-round season. NBA basketball plays 82.

Why is 22 a magical number?

Heard of the cricket? MCG, SCG, Gabba?

Are you clued in to the crap the AFL has had to go through just to extend the season 1 week into October! Onto October 1! For godsake - the level of complaint is amazing when you consider how AFL Football funds a place like the MCG.

 

[McCrann]

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

Top teams don't have that chance anymore.

Therefore, they don't have a double chance.

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



So what?

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

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

If we just keep on adding more teams into the finals, it just cheapens the achievement of actually making the finals. We've already done that by putting half the competition into the finals. Let's not cheapen it further by adding more teams.

People seem to have forgotten that making the finals should be an achievement, and not a formality.

(but I guess that's what having half the clubs participate in them does...)



The current system with two Preliminary Finals is definitely entertaining - I'm not arguing that. Yes, it's high stakes etc...

But at the same time, we have to find a balance between "entertaining" and a fair way to sort out the Premier team of the entire season that actually takes the bulk of our season (being the H&A rounds) into account, and rewards the better teams appropriately.

The current system (with two Prelims) is weighted far too heavily towards entertainment, than it is towards having relevance to the H&A rounds.

And again, if we have a system that doesn't truly take into account the H&A rounds, then why bother playing them?

You seem to have forgotten what the word final actually means. It means ending. So why should a team in a Preliminary Final get another chance?

Its almost like you're trying to take us back to the 1920s! With the Challenge System!

So, if the top team wins through to the Grand Final and then loses it - you would support that team having the right to Challenge for another chance a the Premiership?

Sorry - that ended in 1930.

 

[McCrann]

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

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

So ANY finals system, is unfair.

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

I really don't think that is what was driving the finals system in 1897 - do you?

The players were amateurs and paid a pittance - do you really think that was part of the equation nearly 115 years ago?

As well - the EPL didn't exist back then and the new English League had only been around for less than a decade - certainly not as old as the VFA (1877).

 

[Dan26]

You seem to have forgotten what the word final actually means. It means ending. So why should a team in a Preliminary Final get another chance?

Its almost like you're trying to take us back to the 1920s! With the Challenge System!

So, if the top team wins through to the Grand Final and then loses it - you would support that team having the right to Challenge for another chance a the Premiership?

Sorry - that ended in 1930.

Exactly.

These people are hypocrites.

They say they want the double chance. But they are fine with the top team being able to be eliminated in the Grand Final. That is a total contradiction right there.

Their flawed argument is, "Oh, but the Grand Final is different"

NO!

It's still a part of the finals series. It's still a match that you can be unlucky in, and suffer injuries in, and be eliminated after one loss. It's all about winning the premiership, right? So, if you lose the GF and are "not premiers" this is no different to losing your first final and being "not premiers." SAME THING.

You simply cannot support a knockout GF and a knockout PF, and then at the same time support a double chance.

The irony of all this is that everyone supporting a double chance loves knockout finals! EVERYONE LOVES KNOCKOUT FINALS. They are the heart and soul of the finals and always have been.

Everyone knows that knockout finals are more exciting. Everyone knows they are the heart and soul of what the word final is supposed to represent.

 

[Father Jack]

Exactly.

These people are hypocrites.

They say they want the double chance. But they are fine with the top team being able to be eliminated in the Grand Final. That is a total contradiction right there.

Their flawed argument is, "Oh, but the Grand Final is different"

NO!

It's still a part of the finals series. It's still a match that you can be unlucky in, and suffer injuries in, and be eliminated after one loss. It's all about winning the premiership, right? So, if you lose the GF and are "not premiers" this is no different to losing your first final and being "not premiers." SAME THING.

You simply cannot support a knockout GF and a knockout PF, and then at the same time support a double chance.

The irony of all this is that everyone supporting a double chance loves knockout finals! EVERYONE LOVES KNOCKOUT FINALS. They are the heart and soul of the finals and always have been.

Everyone knows that knockout finals are more exciting. Everyone knows they are the heart and soul of what the word final is supposed to represent.

Go and learn how to debate sensibly, then come back and try again.

 

[Dan26]

I support, as do many in this thread, the top teams not being able to be eliminated in their FIRST GAME.

There you go again! What is it with this flawed logic???????

Why is it okay to be eliminated after one loss (WITH NO DOUBLE CHANCE) in your second or third final, but not your first final? What difference does it make? You're still out after one loss with no double chance.

Under the knockout final-10, THE TOP TEAM CANNOT BE ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST WEEK!

They can be eliminated in the second week onwards.

Under the current final-8, the top team cannot be eliminated in the first week, but can be eliminated in the second week onwards. Same thing.

Sure, they can go out after one loss in the knckout final-10, but so what? They can go out after one loss in the current final8 too.

You could argue 1st is better off in the knockout final-10 because in order to get to the preliminary Final, they need to win a knockout match against one of 8th, 9th or 10th.

Under the current system, first has to beat 4th to get to the prelim. A harder match. The trade off for a harder match is that they get a second chance if they lose.

Under the knockout final-10, they have an easier match in order to win through to the Prelim. The trade-off for that easier match is no second chance if they lose.

1st has essentially the same advantage in both systems. One has a harder match with a second chance if they lose. The knockout sysrem has an easier match with no second chance. Simple trade-off.

I'd take the easier match with no second chance. 1st was 6-0 against 8th from 1994-1999 under the first McIntyre system. 1st is 6-4 against 4th from 2000-2009.

Now I know 1st didn't face elimination agaisnt 8th under that silly sysystem, but suppose they did? Would you rather a 100% chance of getting through to the Prelim by beating 8th (they were 6-0 remember), but face elimination if you lose? Or would you rather a 60% chance of beating 4th, but you get a second chance if you lose?

I know what I'd take.

And if they lose. BAD LUCK. Finals are about performing on the day, and if you don't perform on the day you are out as you deserve to be. That's what happens if you lose the GF currently. That's what happens if you lose the PF currently. It should be the same fate if you lose ANY final.

Logically.

 

[Dan26]

Go and learn how to debate sensibly, then come back and try again.

The irony is unbelievable, You yourself, the one making the comment, has not attempted to debate.

So, I say to you... Go and learn how to debate PERIOD, then come back and try.

 

[Father Jack]

I'm not the telling everyone else what they think or presenting opinion as fact.

 

[Dan26]

I'm not the telling everyone else what they think or presenting opinion as fact.

You cant deny that what I am saying makes total sense.

I would suggest you don't worry about the person making the argument. And you don't worry about their "style"

Just concern yourself with the logical, common-sense proposal being put forward.