The McIntyre system sucks!!

[Y2eel]

The system AFL has now is out dated... whats the advantage of coming first to fourth? you get a home semi but you play a harder team in the first round ala the West coast Eagles Sydney swan, you dont get any real reward for coming first after 26 rounds...
With first taking on 8 you play at home and get an easier match up against team at Like the storm Eels match....

The incentive for teams 3 4 5 & 6 is that if teams 7 or 8 beat teams 1 or 2 you can be knocked out....

The only probelm i have and its not with the system is that next this weekend both semis are at aussie stadium when they would draw better crowds going to newcastle and St George ..

 

[copa]

Rare and unlikely I know. So the NRL would HAVE to take that into account. Also they would have to take into account the AFL puts on standby for their use for any possible replay Flights, hotels, functions rooms, training ovals and even the Melbourne City Council months in advance and if they don't end up needing them release them on the Monday. The NRL and their fans would have to work around that.

Playing two Grand Finals in Melbourne in one year provide more issues and problems than you think, all because the AFL and their use of the Grand Final Replay.

The NRL don't have to use the MCG... the telstra dome is a much better stadium for rectangualt field sports... the MCG is cr@p.

 

[Fire Storm]

The system AFL has now is out dated... whats the advantage of coming first to fourth? you get a home semi but you play a harder team in the first round ala the West coast Eagles Sydney swan, you dont get any real reward for coming first after 26 rounds...
With first taking on 8 you play at home and get an easier match up against team at Like the storm Eels match....

The incentive for teams 3 4 5 & 6 is that if teams 7 or 8 beat teams 1 or 2 you can be knocked out....

The only probelm i have and its not with the system is that next this weekend both semis are at aussie stadium when they would draw better crowds going to newcastle and St George ..

Ah! Someone with at least half a brain.

 

[dr nick]

I dont think the GF will ever leave Sydney.. it's far too big a risk hosting a GF in another city if two out of town teams are playing.

Likewise the AFL GF will never leave Melbourne. Imagine hosting a GF in Sydney between Fremantle and Adelaide?


The thing that makes the McIntyre system untenable is the fact that every game after the first week is played in Sydney. So when 4th plays 5th for instance, win or lose, your game next week is played at Aussie Stadium. It'd be worth resting key players because you'd sooner bank on a key player getting injured than the bottom 3 teams all getting up. If there were home finals there'd be some advantage.

Newcastle who won last week, have to play away from home and face a higher ranked side than Manly do for their troubles.

 

[Tigger Please!]

Sydney doesn't own the GF. The roaming GF is coming.

yep.
eventually we'll probably see the NRL GF being hosted on a 4 year cycle of Sydney (Telstra - 82 000), Brisbane (Suncorp - 52 000), Melbourne (Dome - 55 000) and Auckland (Eden Park - 50 000?). A stadium which can hold over 50 000 will be the prerequisite.
Sydney and Brisbane would sell-out their games easily, regardless of who's playing.
SOO3 in Melbourne this year indicates that the vics will show up regardless of whether they have representation or not.
Auckland would also sell-out it's game pretty easily with the Rah-rah season well-and-truly over by then.

 

[Fire Storm]

Gallop has anounced that the McIntyre system will stay.


Sanity and common sence has prevailed.

 

[music_2000]

St.George and Newcastle who won in the first week play Manly and Brisbane who lost and the losers are eliminated. Where the hell is the incentive to win in the first week? The AFL system is infinitely better. What is even worse is that suppose Canberra and Parramatta had both caused upsets then Newcastle(4th) and St.George (6th) would be in preliminary finals after one win while Brisbane(3rd) and Manly(5th) would have been eliminated after one loss. The McIntyre system is ridiculous.



P.S Go Doggies, Woof Woof!!

I didn't see any complaints when the AFL used the McIntyre finals system before 2000. Ironically the NRL used the current AFL system can anyone explain???

 

[red+black]

I didn't see any complaints when the AFL used the McIntyre finals system before 2000. Ironically the NRL used the current AFL system can anyone explain???

You have a short memory if you don't think there were complaints about the original McIntyre system. Do you think it was changed just for fun?

There was discontent with:
- 1997: Geelong (2nd), lose to North Melbourne (7th), then have to travel to Adelaide (4th) in Week 2

It's ridiculous that performance in one game would override that over the previous 22 matches.

But I think the final nail in the coffin was:

- 1999: Carlton (6th), lose to Brisbane (3rd) by 73, yet are not eliminated, and in fact get an easier game the following week, West Coast (5th), and play in Melbourne

I believe most thought that a 6th placed team that loses by 12 goals should not get a 2nd chance. If you finish that low and lose, you should be eliminated.

I think both systems have their good points and bad points. My suggestion is less teams and revert to a final 5 (will never happen though).

 

[sportznut]

But I think the final nail in the coffin was:

- 1999: Carlton (6th), lose to Brisbane (3rd) by 73, yet are not eliminated, and in fact get an easier game the following week, West Coast (5th), and play in Melbourne

EXACTLY! I'm pretty sure that was the final straw. Admittedly, the reason they played in Melbourne was because of the AFL's contract with the MCG, but even so, it's pretty silly that a team that finishes 6th and gets thrashed by 73 points should be able to get a second chance.

 

[Dan26]

You have a short memory if you don't think there were complaints about the original McIntyre system. Do you think it was changed just for fun?

There was discontent with:
- 1997: Geelong (2nd), lose to North Melbourne (7th), then have to travel to Adelaide (4th) in Week 2

It's ridiculous that performance in one game would override that over the previous 22 matches.

You're wrong. Adelaide deserved that home final. Geelong deserved to be the away team.

Under the "1v8" finals system, it was different. The winning teams from week one got to host the losing teams form week 2.

The top 4 teams all had the OPPORTUNITY to win (unlike the current AFL sysem), so if they lost, they forfeited home ground advantage, because they only had themselves to blame if they lost. Under the current AFL system 2 of the top 4 HAVE to lose, because they play each other, so it is unfair for them to lose home ground advantage.

But under the 1v8 system, the top 4 all have the opportunity to win, so there are no excuses if they lose.

Under that old system, the four winners (even if the 4 winners were 5,6,7,8) were then seeded 1,2,3,4, and the 4 losers were seeded 5,6,7,8, and in the second week, 3 hosted 5, and 4 hosted 6.

So, Adelaide (3) hosted Geelong (5.) And so they should have,

Mathematically, the winners were higher seeded than the losers, so they got the home final. That is why Adelaide in 1997 (4th on the ladder) deservedly hosted Geelong (2nd on the ladder) at Football Park, because after the first week of the finals, Adelaide was actually re-ranked 3rd, and Geelong was 5th and 3rd gets to host 5th. That same weekend North Melbourne (7th) got to host West Coast (5th) because North was re-ranked 4th (because they were the lowest of the four winners) and West Coast was re-ranked 6th (the second best loser) and 4th gets to host 6th.

Under the current AFL system, where 2nd hosts 3rd, if 2nd lost they would get a home final in week 2. This is good for them, but the "catch" is they have a harder qualifying final in the first place..

Under the old "1v8" system, 2nd loses home ground adantage IF they lose in week, one but they have an easier match in the first place (versus 7th) to make up for this. Hence, Geelong in 1997.

But under this years AFL final system it is different. The top 4 teams have to play each other, so you can't "blame" them for losing when two of them HAVE to lose. Under the old system, all of the top 4 could win, so they only had themselves to blame if they didn't.

That's why geelong lost home ground advantage. Mathematically, they "became" 5th.

Under this years system, the loser of 1v4, reatins a higher seed than the winner of 5v8, and so they should. You can't say "yeah but it's their fault for losing", because if the top 4 play each other one of them has to lose.

 

[red+black]

Yeah I know how it worked, I'm saying it wasn't right, and I'm sure a majority would agree that the system was wrong in that performance over 22 weeks is ignored in favour of one final.

I heard a Western Bulldogs supporter on the radio say that because they won and West Coast lost that the Bulldogs should have home ground advantage for last weekend's game. Same premise, although the rules are different this time.

It's unfair that 1 and 2 have been disadvantaged by the new system and that should be looked at. I've always thought that teams should choose when and where they play, that is West Coast choose what day and what time they play, then Adelaide, then Collingwood, then St Kilda. At least that gives the teams a little more advantage.

 

[sportznut]

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20435423-2722,00.html

Code rues missed chance at home run
COMMENT
Stuart Honeysett
September 19, 2006

THE NRL announced at its annual end of season conference last year that, from the 2007 season, teams can qualify for home finals in the first three weeks with the only exception being the grand final.
It is a good idea but unfortunately comes one year too late for Melbourne.

Due to contractual arrangements with Aussie and Telstra stadiums, the Storm will be forced to travel to Sydney to face St George Illawarra in the qualifying final on Saturday night.

This is despite the fact it finished the season in first place and earned a week's break after accounting for Parramatta in the first week of the finals.

The Dragons finished the regular season in sixth position and have beaten Brisbane and Manly in the past fortnight.

What makes the situation even worse for the Storm is the fact that Melbourne has no AFL game scheduled for this weekend, as the contenders are all interstate teams.

The Sydney Swans will host the Fremantle Dockers at Telstra Stadium on Friday night while the Adelaide Crows will host the West Coast Eagles at AAMI Stadium on Saturday afternoon.

It is the second week that Victorian fans have been left without a finals game.

What better opportunity could there be for the NRL to promote their product with a Storm-Dragons game at Telstra Dome?

The Storm's home crowds at Olympic Park have increased this year as the club made its charge towards the minor premiership.

And the match-ups from the Storm-Dragons would draw fans through the gate. Greg Inglis v Mark Gasnier. Matt King v Matt Cooper. Trent Barrett v Scott Hill. The Dragons' representative-class forward pack against the Storm's under-rated big men.

Storm chief executive Brian Waldron, who was celebrating the decision by commercial broadcaster Channel Nine to televise the match live in Melbourne, understood the NRL's hands were tied because of a commercial agreement.

However, he believed the NRL would have gone close to filling the 50,000 seat Telstra Dome stadium, if the game had been scheduled in Melbourne on Saturday night.

"It would have been nice to have it here for all our supporters and certainly for Melbourne, but the reality is it's come one year too early and that's just the way the penny drops," Waldron said.

Thankfully, salvation is not too far away.

All bets regarding contractual arrangements will be officially off at the end of this year and, as of 2007, week one of the finals will see games held in home venues, week two will be home cities and week three home regions.

Preference will be given to the teams who win in finals, with the highest-ranked team to get first crack, if both teams have won.

In layman's terms that means the sudden death semi-final between Newcastle and Brisbane would have been held in Newcastle while Saturday night's Storm-Dragons game would have been staged at Telstra Dome.

The change leaves Melbourne with the task of finishing in the top four again next year to set up the prospect of more than one home final in 2007.

 

[dr nick]

And in a further twist of irony, the Swans supporters based mostly in the east will be travelling to Homebush, and the Bulldogs supporters will be heading out to the East.

I'm also confused about this 'home venues', 'home cities' and 'home regions'... presumably the home city is the same as the home region with the exception of.....?

This home venue correction is long overdue - it could well decide the premiership this year. If the Storm were playing the Dragons in Melbourne they'd be odds on favourites. As it is with the home ground advantage the Dragons are a short $1.70

 

[Hicham]

I'm also confused about this 'home venues', 'home cities' and 'home regions'... presumably the home city is the same as the home region with the exception of.....?

Taken from LU:

This has been covered in a number of threads over the past couple of days, but here you go:

Graham Annesley was on ABC radio yesterday and one of the things he covered was the system for allocating finals for 2007 onwards.

It can basically be summed up as:

Week 1: Home Venues
Week 2: Home Cities
Week 3: Home Regions

Annesley clearly stated (or at the very least he implied) that the third and fourth highest winners from week 1 would earn a final in their home city in week 2. It wasn't crystal clear from what he said, but presumably the first and second highest winners from week 1 would earn a final in their home region in week 3.

From what Annesley said, you'd expect the following venues to be available for the weeks 2 and 3.

Week 2 - Home Cities:

Aussie Stadium, Sydney
Telstra Stadium, Sydney
Canberra Stadium, Canberra
EnergyAustralia Stadium, Newcastle
Olympic Park/New Stadium, Melbourne
Mt Smart Stadium, Auckland
Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane
Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville
Carrara Stadium/Robina Stadium, Gold Coast

Annesley specifically ruled out WIN Stadium (St. George Illawarra home finals in Week 2 would be played at Aussie or Telstra Stadium) and I'm not completely sure but I think he ruled in Canberra Stadium for week 2. Perhaps a Gold Coast home final would be scheduled for Suncorp Stadium, but I imagine if Canberra Stadium and EnergyAustralia Stadium are acceptable for week 2 I see no reason why the new Robina Stadium wouldn't be. Annesley said that the NRL would consider Telstra Dome for week 3 if it was available, implying that in week 2 the smaller Olympic Park or the new stadium would be considered appropriate.

Week 3 - Home Regions:

Aussie Stadium, Sydney
Telstra Stadium, Sydney
Olympic Park/New Stadium/Telstra Dome, Melbourne
Mt Smart Stadium, Auckland
Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane
Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville

Annesley said that the test for week 3 'regions' was if fans of the team that has earned the home final could get there relatively easily. I cannot recall the exact phrase he used, but it was something to that effect. I'm quite sure that he implied that Canberra and Newcastle would be expected to get to Sydney for a week 3 final but he definitely pointed out that the distance between North Queensland and Suncorp Stadium was too great and therefore North Queensland would be considered a seperate region to Brisbane and the Gold Coast. See above comments for Telstra Dome. If the expercted crowd were big enough to justify it, perhaps the NRL would consider the larger Eden Park in Auckland for a New Zealand Warriors home final in week 3.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Taken from LU:

I like it that they have thought of NZ, imagine them with a week 3 Prelim Final.

anyone think NZ has a stadium big enough for the game?

 

[sportznut]

I'm also confused about this 'home venues', 'home cities' and 'home regions'... presumably the home city is the same as the home region with the exception of.....?

I'd suggest that in the 3rd week, they wouldn't really want to use a venue any smaller than about 40,000. Therefore, that means some of the venues wouldn't be big enough for their liking. For example, I reckon Newcastle and Canberra would be playing in Sydney and the Gold Coast and even probably North Queensland would be playing in Brisbane.

 

[dr nick]

Taken from LU:

Thanks Hicham, I forgot about the titans - but it's really only Newcastle otherwise who can't play close to home in a prelim.. and Canberra as sportznut says

 

[pcpp]

In contrasting views:

1 and 2 have appeared in opposite NRL preliminary finals 6 out of 8 times

while...

1 and 2 have appeared in opposite AFL preliminary finals just 2 times in the past 8 years.

The AFL system rewards 3, 4 too much.