True Wildcard System Considered by the AFL, Revisited

[Freomaniac]

I rather see 8th vs 9th in the finals bye on a friday night. Winner get the last spot in the finals and its a normal finals series

 

[kaiserchief13]

Don't mind the top 6 one but surely there should be a minimum overall win requirement as well

 

[JayJ20]

I think the current top 8 system is great. If a team is not good enough to be in the 8 by the end of the season, then that’s on them. Try harder next year.

Wildcard really only serves to reward mediocre middling teams like Essendon, Port and North.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Your comment on the last page spoke of West Coast in 2017, who of course actually qualified for finals in the normal way, narrowly scraped an EF win and lost in a SF. That's not clear evidence that teams who finish (say) 11th/12th and get in through your proposal would "provide more value to the finals" than teams whose win-loss record actually justifies their inclusion.

But the thing is, finals system aren't just about "facts and figures" (which can only speak to historical trends anyway) - they're about conceptual fairness as well, which is why the revised Final 6 that saw one of the top two necessarily playing a knockout whilst a team below them necessarily got a double chance was no good. Your system clearly creates scope, however improbable, for a host of undesirable possibilities that the simpler but more robust system currently in place doesn't (bottom teams qualifying, a direct interest in losing games to gain a finals berth...) - dismissing them as unlikely doesn't stop them being major problems with the system on a conceptual level.

Actually, finals are about generating money for the AFL. An extended series is on the cards for that reason, the question is what sort of teams do we want filling the last few spots. I'd prefer it be teams that have at least shown the ability to compete against contenders, simple as that.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Are any of these suggestions better than the current system?

I don’t think so, why on earth would you want to dilute the product further, what benefit will having a team with a sub 50% win record put up against the elite sides. Is it 100% no, but short of a 34 game season it’s the best possible setup

The top 12 last season had a win-loss greater than 50%.

Using the OPs examples, the top 6 wildcards were 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th and the top 8 wildcards were 9th and 11th.

7th place GWS would have missed out in a top 6 system, suggesting they beat up on the crap teams to get in their position.

 

[kozi]

What current system of impeccable integrity do you think you're protecting?

I’m not protecting any system. As I said before none are perfect. Under the current system however at least there will never be a lose to make finals, win to miss finals type of situation.

A team tanking in the last round so they can play a final at home is more likely than any of the outrageously imaginative situations you've concocted.

Scenarios which are eventually likely to arise are far from “outrageously imaginative.”

At the end of the day it’s just an idea you’re running with. I think dropping the ego and acknowledging the drawbacks of it would go a long way. Many people have noted the flaws, you can’t sit there and say with a straight face they don’t exist.

 

[flamethrower]

The AFL needs to fix the home and away fixture before messing with the finals system.

 

[Le Grille]

The top 12 last season had a win-loss greater than 50%.

Using the OPs examples, the top 6 wildcards were 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th and the top 8 wildcards were 9th and 11th.

7th place GWS would have missed out in a top 6 system, suggesting they beat up on the crap teams to get in their position.

It would be the exception not the rule that many teams would be >50%

 

[Spiritof82]

Why do we have to follow dumb American ideas, there is nothing wrong with the current system (although it should go back to the top 6 play in the finals). The way the idiots at the AFL are going there won't be any home and away games, just a 26 week final series with everyone getting participation awards at the end and no premiership team.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The top 12 last season had a win-loss greater than 50%.

Using the OPs examples, the top 6 wildcards were 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th and the top 8 wildcards were 9th and 11th.

7th place GWS would have missed out in a top 6 system, suggesting they beat up on the crap teams to get in their position.

One of us must've miscounted. I had the Giants on 3 wins, with only Geelong above them on 4. Would've been 7th-10th in the wildcard games last year if I counted it right.

 

[Pessimistic]

Have three variations on the finals. Then the system used gets selected by three ball ballot after the homye and away season is over

Similarly for. Draft picks

 

[longsuffreosupp]

One of us must've miscounted. I had the Giants on 3 wins, with only Geelong above them on 4. Would've been 7th-10th in the wildcard games last year if I counted it right.

Fair enough. They also had a draw too, so not sure how that would equate into the system..

 

[Teen Wolf]

I’m not protecting any system. As I said before none are perfect. Under the current system however at least there will never be a lose to make finals, win to miss finals type of situation.


Scenarios which are eventually likely to arise are far from “outrageously imaginative.”

At the end of the day it’s just an idea you’re running with. I think dropping the ego and acknowledging the drawbacks of it would go a long way. Many people have noted the flaws, you can’t sit there and say with a straight face they don’t exist.

Yeah I should've melted into an agreeable puddle when you posed that super realistic possibility about a wooden-spooner repeatedly knocking off top teams.

 

[kozi]

Yeah I should've melted into an agreeable puddle when you posed that super realistic possibility about a wooden-spooner repeatedly knocking off top teams.

You actually watch any footy?

Carlton (a moral for the spoon if it wasn’t for GC) knocked off Brisbane who are 4th just a few weeks back. They ran Collingwood to the wire earlier in the season and on current form they’d be a fighting chance against other higher up teams who are looking shaky.

Anyway I’m taking everything you’ve said with a grain of salt. You’re just mindlessly defending the idea now.

 

[HTT]

I'll give it a try.

The 2 teams winning the QF don't deserve to have to play a straight knockout semi-final (a.k.a. preliminary final). They deserve to retain their double chance for their next match (just like they used to to in the final 4, final 5 and final 6 days).

Therefore, cut the pre-finals bye and build in an extra week after the prelims. If one or both of the QF winners lose the prelim, they get a double chance and play again the following week. In other words, their opponent has to beat them twice.

If both QF winners win the prelim, then there is a pre-GF bye. Call it a "celebration of footy weekend" and play an all-star game or something.

There are pros and cons to this proposal but I miss the old days where the double chance lasted into the second week of finals.

I’d do something slightly different.
Basically revert it to the old final 4 with the two QF winners and two SF winners facing each other.
So last year Richmond would have played West Coast and the loser of that would’ve played the winner of Collingwood v Melbourne in the other ‘prelim’

 

[Dazzler9]

I’d do something slightly different.
Basically revert it to the old final 4 with the two QF winners and two SF winners facing each other.
So last year Richmond would have played West Coast and the loser of that would’ve played the winner of Collingwood v Melbourne in the other ‘prelim’

Even better!

 

[Teen Wolf]

You actually watch any footy?

Carlton (a moral for the spoon if it wasn’t for GC) knocked off Brisbane who are 4th just a few weeks back. They ran Collingwood to the wire earlier in the season and on current form they’d be a fighting chance against other higher up teams who are looking shaky.

Anyway I’m taking everything you’ve said with a grain of salt. You’re just mindlessly defending the idea now.

Yep, Carlton beating Brisbane one time totally unravels the whole concept. You've nailed it, mate. What a drawback, I see clearly now thanks to your refined and varied approach to the discussion.

 

[doppleganger]

I get what you’re saying, but say two bottom 10 sides win against top 6 sides due to the fact they have more schedules home games, or even at different points in the season; so maybe the top 8 teams struggle at the start of the year, as some teams often do, or in the latter rounds, like 2017 when Adelaide rested players against WC in the last round and lost?

Is it a real reflection that they are the best outside the 8? Or simply shouldn’t that go to 9 & 10?

The point is that at present the imbalanced fixture may artificially inflate a teams performance.

A team may only finish 8th because they had an easier fixture.

Actually think it is a decent prospect, reward the top6 as the actual guaranteed finalists who get a week off.

And in the current bye play an actual ‘wildcard’ game that isn’t simply 7 through 10 on the ladder (nothing wildcard about that) but use an alternative take, that is designed to come up with a different take on ‘best of the rest’.

 

[Dazzler9]

The point is that at present the imbalanced fixture may artificially inflate a teams performance.

A team may only finish 8th because they had an easier fixture.

Actually think it is a decent prospect, reward the top6 as the actual guaranteed finalists who get a week off.

And in the current bye play an actual ‘wildcard’ game that isn’t simply 7 through 10 on the ladder (nothing wildcard about that) but use an alternative take, that is designed to come up with a different take on ‘best of the rest’.

Any system where potentially the wooden spooner can be the Premier, is a dog.

 

[kozi]

Yep, Carlton beating Brisbane one time totally unravels the whole concept. You've nailed it, mate. What a drawback, I see clearly now thanks to your refined and varied approach to the discussion.

Being a smartass isn’t doing you any favours. I’ve explained in detail many working situations that show why this system is garbage. All you’ve done is carry on like they aren’t factors as they aren’t likely, a position which holds precisely 0 weight when discussing a system to enhance the integrity of the competition.

In summary, complete garbage.

 

[ZingerB]

Does not work in our unbalanced league. How is it fair that for e.g. Port Adelaide gets 9 games throughout the year against "top 6" sides, giving them an opportunity to score 9 points, where as another team may only play top 6 sides 7 times throughout the year, only giving them the opportunity to register 7 wins.

You would have to be pretty daft to think that was a problem. I personally dislike the wildcard system, but that would literally be the strongest argument for bringing it in where borderline teams miss out with a much tougher fixture.

 

[kozi]

Any system where potentially the wooden spooner can be the Premier, is a dog.

OP can’t seem to grasp this. Not that hard to understand.. surely?

 

[Dazzler9]

Any system where potentially the wooden spooner can be the Premier, is a dog.

OP can’t seem to grasp this. Not that hard to understand.. surely?

It's actually possible under this proposed system. So forget about it.

This was a suggestion back in 2012 if I'm not mistaken? So it never eventuated and is not up for discussion currently. Thank the universe!

 

[kozi]

It's actually possible under this proposed system. So forget about it.

This was a suggestion back in 2012 if I'm not mistaken? So it never eventuated and is not up for discussion currently. Thank the universe!

Well that’s pretty much the crux of the issue. If such a thing is possible under a certain system it shouldn’t be considered, hence why I’m strong on how ridiculous this proposal is.

This one is extra special however, also comes with a juicy side of top to bottom tanking and undermining the competion as a whole.

 

[doppleganger]

Any system where potentially the wooden spooner can be the Premier, is a dog.

Fair call.

I like the concept, and agree that if the AFL is thinking of expanding finals qualification that it should potentially use an alternative to the H&A ladder to determine ‘wildcards’.

The reason being, that with the imbalance in the fixture that the ladder itself is flawed.

An alternative suggestion could be top6 based on ladder automatically qualify for finals, and as a reward they get a week off.

But in the present ‘bye week’ before final kick off under the top8 system, have the teams with the top 4 best % outside the top6 playoff to qualify for the actual finals.

Last year that would have been

Geelong as best % outside top6 hosting Port and Giants taking on North.

But in 2017, Collingwood in 13th had a better % compared to 10th, 11th and 12th. Being the 4th best % of teams outside the top6 they would have made

Something like that actually helps distinguish advantages

Top4 get week off and double chance
5-6 get week off
7-10 compete to make top8

And it potentially keeps more teams alive with more to play for deep into the season.

Good luck with a wooden spoon team having a % better than a team who won 10-11 games!