True Wildcard System Considered by the AFL, Revisited

[Duskfire]

Which teams from outside the 8 in the last 10 years should've played finals? The only team I can think of unlucky to miss who could've had a crack at the flag is the Cats in 93 and that was under a different system.

Agreed. A team could potentially pull off one game upset, but if a team isn’t good enough to be one of the best 8, then they are no chance of winning it all.

Under this system, more then half the competition would make the finals. It’s getting to the point where they might as well let everyone in and implement a round robin or something.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Which teams from outside the 8 in the last 10 years should've played finals? The only team I can think of unlucky to miss who could've had a crack at the flag is the Cats in 93 and that was under a different system.

Not gonna say should've because the premise is you still have to win the wildcard game to prove your worth, but... In retrospect there's a team every year outside the 8 that was much more competitive than their ladder position suggested. And the inverse of that is true too.

Collingwood 2017 is a good and recent example, only managed 9.5 wins that season but look at the details of their results that year, their draw, and of course their performance the following year--all of it holds up better than Essendon, the team that was easily done away with in an EF against Sydney.

 

[Teen Wolf]

In particular, it makes a small set of games super important, but you don't know which games those will be until the end of the year - so there's no added excitement or tension at the time. You only discover in retrospect that, oh, that game we lost turns out to be against a Top 6 side, because they made a late run, so it was really critical. Oh well. Would have been nice to know that at the time.

Simply the prospect of a game being worth more than 4 points must surely add something.

And it does this based on the plainly wrong idea that everyone has an equal shot against the Top 6 - when in fact some teams will have played them with the help of major home ground advantage, some will have faced them at their peak and others when they had injuries, and so on. Since you only have a handful of games against the Top 6, these little inequities suddenly become vastly more important, so that your whole finals campaign could come down to whether you were fixtured to play a couple of teams at home or away.

Plus, of course, it's perfectly possible to make Top 6 with the help of a soft fixture. The whole premise is that fixture bias means we can't trust ladder position - but its solution is entirely based on ladder position anyway!

Not quite, the actual assumption is that if you have a soft draw and only go 12-10 then you're probably a pretender.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Still doesn't properly address it.

Let's assume a team in 11th or 12th is still reasonable.
If its a Geelong, Hawks in Tas, West Coast (for example), if the game(s) against top 8 sides are at their home grounds, and the teams in 9th or 10th are clubs that share those home grounds with the top 8 teams they play (I.e Port & Adelaide, West Coast & Freo), there is an imbalance.

Nice attempt though.

Still prefer the 17 week season, then breaking the ladder into 6.
Top 6 qualify for finals but play off for position and home finals. But in the last 5 weeks they can't drop out of the top 6
Middle 6 play off for the last 2 spots in the finals
Bottom 6 play off for picks. 13th gets 1, 14th, 2, and so on. If the bottom team is so bad, Priority Picks can be applied for.

All games in the final 5 rounds reverse the home team from the first 17 rounds
So if Essendon hosted West Coast in the first 17 rounds, if they come to play them again in the last 5, its West Coasts home game.

Don't mind this system except the last bit. There's potential to have 5 away games if the stars align..

 

[citizen-erased]

Don't mind this system except the last bit. There's potential to have 5 away games if the stars align..

that would be a problem
not one i've thought of

not sure how you do anything about that
Will give it thought

 

[longsuffreosupp]

that would be a problem
not one i've thought of

not sure how you do anything about that
Will give it thought

It would have to be 'fixtured'. Some teams would already have had more home games than away, so that would have to be taken into account too.

 

[citizen-erased]

It would have to be 'fixtured'. Some teams would already have had more home games than away, so that would have to be taken into account too.

Yeah, i guess that is how you'd do it
Take the ladder as is after this weekend (ill predict some results)

Top 6 - Geel, WCE, Coll, Bris, Rich, GWS
Middle 6 - Port, Crows, Ess, Dogs, Hawks, Roos
Bottom 6 - Syd, Freo, Saints, Dees, Blues, Suns
Take the 3 bold clubs as an example. Had they played all those teams around them at home, you'd ideally want them avoiding having to travel every week.
Crows would at least get a pseudo home game v Port.

So its probably a bigger issue for the two WA teams given how much they'd have to travel in terms of distance to get to the east coast.
You could try limit their home games in the first 17 weeks to give them access to more in the last 5. But then does that impact their ability to get as high on the ladder as possible.

Good point to bring up.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Feel free to elaborate, if you can. It's essentially just adding two games (featuring four mid-ladder teams) to a currently football-free weekend. What is the worst thing that would happen?


So does this, gives an extra chance to lower-ranked teams who have proven they can pose a threat to contenders.

So you honestly don't see why this is a ridiculous idea?

Interesting

 

[Final Siren]

Simply the prospect of a game being worth more than 4 points must surely add something.

After Round 23, we know who the Top 6 are, so at that point we can all look back and say, "In Round 9 you played Brisbane and they've snuck into 6th, so now that result will determine whether you get to play finals." But back in Round 9, no-one knew it was a Top 6 game. Nothing was added to the experience because nobody knew it was happening.

Not quite, the actual assumption is that if you have a soft draw and only go 12-10 then you're probably a pretender.

Yes, and equally, you can have a soft draw and finish 6th. Look back only 9 months: Hawthorn and Sydney (4th and 6th) were both a little flattered by their finishing positions while Geelong and GWS (7th & 8th) were a bit unlucky. But this proposal assumes the Top 6 must definitely always be the best teams, much better than 7th and 8th, and that just isn't true. It claims to address the problem of fixture bias, but actually makes it worse.

 

[HTT]

that would be a problem
not one i've thought of

not sure how you do anything about that
Will give it thought

First 17 weeks you have 8 home, 8 away and 1 neutral games (or as neutral as possible, shared gate money).
Next 5 weeks the top 3 of each pool get 3 home and 2 away, the bottom 3 of each pool get 2 home and 3 away. Or if you really want to reward position, you play at home against teams you seeded above, and away against teams you seeded below.

There’s a bit of an issue of clubs missing money in the 2nd phase by getting more away games. Could probably be remedied by splitting the gate on every game.

Tbh I’m not really a fan of the 2nd phase anyway. I reckon it’d quickly descend into being viewed as a top 12 finals. Rather see just 17 games straight up. Make it cutthroat.

 

[citizen-erased]

First 17 weeks you have 8 home, 8 away and 1 neutral games (or as neutral as possible, shared gate money).
Next 5 weeks the top 3 of each pool get 3 home and 2 away, the bottom 3 of each pool get 2 home and 3 away. Or if you really want to reward position, you play at home against teams you seeded above, and away against teams you seeded below.

There’s a bit of an issue of clubs missing money in the 2nd phase by getting more away games. Could probably be remedied by splitting the gate on every game.

Tbh I’m not really a fan of the 2nd phase anyway. I reckon it’d quickly descend into being viewed as a top 12 finals. Rather see just 17 games straight up. Make it cutthroat.

Personally, i would take a 17 week season and perhaps add some round to the finals (perhaps best over 2 legs for the first 3 sets of games, which buys you back 6 weeks)
but what do the other clubs during this period.

Reason i like the 6-6-6 ladder break up is each zone plays for something in those final weeks, but does so within their group.
Particularly the bottom 6 fighting for the better pick position.

or, extend out the season to 35 rounds somehow and truly open it up.
Premier is the team sitting at the top at the end of the season.

 

[Teen Wolf]

After Round 23, we know who the Top 6 are, so at that point we can all look back and say, "In Round 9 you played Brisbane and they've snuck into 6th, so now that result will determine whether you get to play finals." But back in Round 9, no-one knew it was a Top 6 game. Nothing was added to the experience because nobody knew it was happening.

Everybody has a fairly good idea about who the top contenders are from pretty early on in the season, disingenuous to dispute that.

Yes, and equally, you can have a soft draw and finish 6th. Look back only 9 months: Hawthorn and Sydney (4th and 6th) were both a little flattered by their finishing positions while Geelong and GWS (7th & 8th) were a bit unlucky. But this proposal assumes the Top 6 must definitely always be the best teams, much better than 7th and 8th, and that just isn't true. It claims to address the problem of fixture bias, but actually makes it worse.

Sydney may have overperformed in the H&A but it wasn't due to an easy draw, didn't play any objectively poor teams twice for a start. And Hawthorn went 3-3 against fellow top 6 teams (as well as 2-0 against Geelong). So neither the Swans nor Hawks of 2018 are anything like the kind of corner-cutting teams which this system attempts to weed out.

 

[Furn2]

Should make it the team voted best looking gets in.

 

[doppleganger]

I guess I am just trying to weigh up the arguments on both sides, and I get what you’re saying, use a formula that looks at the best performing sides against top 6 sides. Can I ask how the NFL does it?

NFL presently splits itself into eight divisions of four teams.

They create each season schedule so that you are primarily ranked against your fellow division teams. They are playing almost identical schedules, so the divisional ladder thus is a fair way of ranking teams.

The division winners all qualify for finals...plus they then add wildcards being the next best teams.

AFL could easily adopt something similar. Lock in three divisions of six teams.

You always play your fellow division twice = 10 games.

You then play six games against one of the other division as away games, and the remaining division as home games.

Retain the 22 H&A games.

But instead of an overall ladder, the division ladders become important. As the top2 of each division auto qualify for finals - the top6.

To fill out the final 8, have a wildcard weekend where the next best 4 teams (a couple of ways you could come up with that) they compete to become the 7th and 8th seeds of the standard final 8.

 

[HTT]

NFL presently splits itself into eight divisions of four teams.

They create each season schedule so that you are primarily ranked against your fellow division teams. They are playing almost identical schedules, so the divisional ladder thus is a fair way of ranking teams.

The division winners all qualify for finals...plus they then add wildcards being the next best teams.

AFL could easily adopt something similar. Lock in three divisions of six teams.

You always play your fellow division twice = 10 games.

You then play six games against one of the other division as away games, and the remaining division as home games.

Retain the 22 H&A games.

But instead of an overall ladder, the division ladders become important. As the top2 of each division auto qualify for finals - the top6.

To fill out the final 8, have a wildcard weekend where the next best 4 teams (a couple of ways you could come up with that) they compete to become the 7th and 8th seeds of the standard final 8.

While my overriding opinion is that our system doesn’t really need change, I do like this.
Far to clever for the AFL to work out.

 

[swiftdog]

NFL presently splits itself into eight divisions of four teams.

They create each season schedule so that you are primarily ranked against your fellow division teams. They are playing almost identical schedules, so the divisional ladder thus is a fair way of ranking teams.

The division winners all qualify for finals...plus they then add wildcards being the next best teams.

AFL could easily adopt something similar. Lock in three divisions of six teams.

You always play your fellow division twice = 10 games.

You then play six games against one of the other division as away games, and the remaining division as home games.

Retain the 22 H&A games.

But instead of an overall ladder, the division ladders become important. As the top2 of each division auto qualify for finals - the top6.

To fill out the final 8, have a wildcard weekend where the next best 4 teams (a couple of ways you could come up with that) they compete to become the 7th and 8th seeds of the standard final 8.

This is the system that I think would work best also. Unlike the USA, I don’t think there’d be a need to keep divisions the same year-on-year either. Have a WA/SA division (minimise west-east travel) + 2 Vic teams, NSW + 4 Vic teams division and QLD + 4 Vic team division. Victorian teams can rotate through the different divisions every year.

Three division winners guaranteed a top 4 spot, second in each division guaranteed a finals berth, two next best records also get into finals (or have a “Wildcard” weekend for the next four best records instead - WC1 vs WC4, WC2 vs WC3).

The logical argument against this system is weak vs strong divisions. I’d argue this argument is not really different to the easy vs hard fixture argument. At least a team’s chance of making finals in this division system is based on the same fixture as other teams in the division though.

 

[HTPunter]

NINE years ago the league reportedly looked at ways of extending the current finals setup with extra spots granted according to wins versus top teams, see two variations below for how that would work:

View attachment 706129
(reasonably sure I correctly counted the number of wins, but you get the idea in any case)

This proposal addresses criticisms of both the current imbalanced fixture (more chances for teams with harder draws) and the faux-wildcard system which would simply grant 9th and 10th a finals berth. Also, a system based on performance against the better teams blunts any suggestion of rewarding mediocrity.

Another benefit is the greater interest it would bring to late-season games through machinations that a simple top 10 couldn't provide. Quick example, applying the T6+W4 system to the competition's current standings: Due to results over the first 16 weeks, Hawthorn's wildcard chances are heavily intertwined with the SA teams making the top 6, whereas the Bulldogs and Fremantle's fortunes become reliant on Brisbane maintaining their position in the upper-third.

Talk about the AFL extending finals has obviously increased over the last few years. If they're going to do it, this general concept would be my preference. In fact, I think I like it more than the current top 8 method for reasons previously identified.

Source: Garry Lyon explains it in the video below from 2012 (key discussion begins at 3:25), while Damian Barrett mentions it had been considered by Andrew Demetriou and co. two years earlier.

Also, a system based on performance against the better teams blunts any suggestion of rewarding mediocrity.

LOL.

In the systems mentioned above, we reward 11th and 12th! How is that not the EPITOME of rewarding mediocrity?

Hey, in 22 games you weren't good enough to finish in the top 50% of teams in the comp (mediocre), but because you won 50% or even less of your games against top 8 sides (mediocre), we are bringing you into the equivalent of an elimination final (rewarding)!

 

[HTPunter]

Let's get real.

Any wildcard weekend is just A chance to increase the AFL's profits.

Every single idea involves rewarding teams that sit in the bottom 50% of the comp.

There is no idea that rewards mediocrity. No wildcard would be earned on merit. It would be given because of the AFL's desire to increase profits. Don't sugercoat it.

 

[doppleganger]

This is the system that I think would work best also. Unlike the USA, I don’t think there’d be a need to keep divisions the same year-on-year either. Have a WA/SA division (minimise west-east travel) + 2 Vic teams, NSW + 4 Vic teams division and QLD + 4 Vic team division. Victorian teams can rotate through the different divisions every year.

Yeah can float divisions each year, re vic teams but AFL would ensure the non-vic pairings held to minimise travel and also leverage the extra interest.

I’d just lock in set divisions though, Geelong wants to be considered a non-Melbourne team so whack them permanently in the West division...Hawks want to keep Tassie, have a rivalry with Geelong...sweet another that can be permanently in that division, all sorted!

Three division winners guaranteed a top 4 spot, second in each division guaranteed a finals berth, two next best records also get into finals (or have a “Wildcard” weekend for the next four best records instead - WC1 vs WC4, WC2 vs WC3).

Yep.
1st and 2nd auto qualify for finals.
Next best four teams in an actual wildcard weekend to become 7th and 8th seeds.

The logical argument against this system is weak vs strong divisions. I’d argue this argument is not really different to the easy vs hard fixture argument. At least a team’s chance of making finals in this division system is based on the same fixture as other teams in the division though.

That is where you could use something like performance against other divisions as the determining factor as to which division champ is seeded highest, and take that into account when determining the wildcards.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Not gonna say should've because the premise is you still have to win the wildcard game to prove your worth, but... In retrospect there's a team every year outside the 8 that was much more competitive than their ladder position suggested. And the inverse of that is true too.

Collingwood 2017 is a good and recent example, only managed 9.5 wins that season but look at the details of their results that year, their draw, and of course their performance the following year--all of it holds up better than Essendon, the team that was easily done away with in an EF against Sydney.

A better option would be reducing to an 18 round/17 game season. Play every team once. If you're good enough you make it. If not bad luck.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

While my overriding opinion is that our system doesn’t really need change, I do like this.
Far to clever for the AFL to work out.

AFL couldn't even work out how to do the divisions in the AFLW this year..

 

[Teen Wolf]

In the systems mentioned above, we reward 11th and 12th! How is that not the EPITOME of rewarding mediocrity?

They're being rewarded for an above-average record and against above-average teams.

A better option would be reducing to an 18 round/17 game season. Play every team once. If you're good enough you make it. If not bad luck.

We all know that, just as we all know it's not even an option the AFL are willing to look into.

 

[Final Siren]

Everybody has a fairly good idea about who the top contenders are from pretty early on in the season, disingenuous to dispute that.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that. You only need to look at this board to see threads like "Richmond will miss finals" followed up two weeks later with "Richmond are a real flag threat." No-one has any idea who the Top 6 will be until at least halfway through the season.

Last year the Top 6 changed right up until the end of the season, when Melbourne jumped in to replace GWS.

The year before that, Sydney made a run into the Top 6 after looking gone for all money at 0-6.

The year before that, the Bulldogs fell out of the Top 6 in Round 18 - the year they won the premiership! The best team, but their games won't count because they didn't finish top 6.

Surely you can see the insanity of waiting until the end of the year to decide what each match was worth in retrospect.

 

[magpienato]

Been looking at the ladder and boy there are a few teams in the mix that would make a good case for a Wildcard Round. Teams like WB and Hawthorn have the capability of knocking out teams like Adelaide and Port Adelaide if it came to a do-or-die qualifier for the finals.

But completely changing the landscape of the finals system isn't ideal either, which is why I think they should trial a simple 9th vs 8th Wildcard game in the future the week in between finals.

Here's an example with the current ladder.



Would pretty much operate exactly the same except with the winner of the Wildcard game to verse the 5th placed team (Tigers in this case) the next week and the finals would continue much the same as it currently does.

Having said that, I still think moving toward a 18-4 fixture would make the need for a Wildcard round redundant.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Incredible that there is nine teams that will finish below the tyre fire that is Essendon. A better argument would be a top 6 finals