True Wildcard System Considered by the AFL, Revisited

[kozi]

It's those sort of machinations that make it considerably more tank-proof than the current system. Too many variables to effectively manipulate anything with control.

Tank proof? There would be a multitude of teams trying to manipulate the system late in the season when the variables are minimised.

On a side note, you’ve only addressed a limited number of issues people have put forward while ignoring the gaping holes in the system you could drive a truck through.

 

[master bate]

Each team Either Plays each other once or twice a season 17 or 34 weeks, adjust the lists , fixture, add a reserves comp to house the extended lists , bye weeks as appropriate, only fair way. The current situation is better than any of these other alternatives

17 is also wildly unfair or some sides because it will be 8 home games 9 away or vice versa.

18 is probably fairer to at least make it 9 home, 9 away. You'd then have double ups but they are derbies for 8 teams which are usually competitve and the Victorian games could be scheduled based on ladder positions of previous seasons.

Either way is never going to be fair. But sport isn't fair. So 22 games is fine by me. I don't think a team has ever played 5 double ups against the top 5 or bottom 5. I remember the Crows got a dream run one year against the expansion teams but it's 1 or 2 extra wins at most.

Suspensions, injuries, illnesses, even where games are scheduled etc probably play a bigger role. For example the Hawks played the Eagles last week with McGovern suspended and I think the Eagles were about a 4 goal worse side, he's that important. The Pies played North at Docklands as a home game, that's got to be another 5 goal swing.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It makes no sense to base finals qualification on something so arbitrary. If it's about addressing fixture imbalances, then the imbalanced number of chances to beat a Top 6/Top 8 team means it instead just compounds them; if it's about not rewarding mediocrity, why does it (for example) let Fremantle off the hook for losing to Melbourne, Gold Coast and Carlton? Incentivising teams to drop certain games for potential reward is far from ideal either (if a team thinks losing will get them a higher-ranked but subjectively 'easier' match-up in finals, that ultimately can't be helped, but dropping games to ensure a team you beat earlier in the year qualifies so that you get an extra point towards "wildcard" qualification is a new problem that can easily be avoided).

Any "wildcard" system has to strongly justify its alternative qualification method - why should we be using that approach at all, rather than the conventional metric of H&A wins? Why should we reward teams who manifestly produced less results throughout the season, but succeeded on some arbitrary and limited metric instead? Nothing about this proposal manages to justify that: the arguments for it are demonstrably flawed.

Addressed that on the last page. Wins against top-6 teams aren't arbitrary, the results I've looked into over the years largely suggest it's a sign of a young team on the rise and likely to provide more value to the finals than a downhill skier. Facts and figures indicating the opposite would be quite a compelling argument, so far none have surfaced in the thread.

Tank proof? There would be a multitude of teams trying to manipulate the system late in the season when the variables are minimised.

On a side note, you’ve only addressed a limited number of issues people have put forward while ignoring the gaping holes in the system you could drive a truck through.

I'm saying something wouldn't happen and you're saying it would, that's your idea of gaping holes. If so, ok, ya got me.

 

[juss]

Don't like any idea at all which involves more than half of the comp qualifying for finals. Should have to have completed a better than average season at the least to make it.

This for me.

Not a fan of the wildcard system. In an 18 team league 8 finalists is the right amount. Wildcards are essentially just extra lower placed finalists.

 

[kozi]

I'm saying something wouldn't happen and you're saying it would, that's your idea of gaping holes. If so, ok, ya got me.

The gaping holes I was referring to was the 5 ways this system would ruin the game which you’re still ignoring.

 

[kozi]

Team out of the top 6 who can’t make it sitting pretty with most wins against the top 6. Late in the season they face 6th who they beat earlier in the season.

Said team will do everything in their power to lose the game. If winning means 6th is bundled out of the top 6 they give themselves 1 less win against a top 6 team, effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

Ultimately this opens the door to a win and you miss finals, lose and you make finals situation.

This is the OP’s idea of a “tank proof” system.

 

[Dazlington]

Didn’t Collingwood and Melbourne only beat one or two top 8 sides each leading into finals last year?

 

[4THAWN]

That particular example would only happen in the universe of yours where a two-win team is somehow a giant killer.

It's more likely to have the reverse effect where lower teams need just one more top-6 win to make finals, thus they don't put the cue in the rack for draft picks.


Like the other bloke, your criticism focusses on things that have 0.0000001% chance of happening. Not impressive.

But if your view is that the unequal fixture isn't a big enough issue to worry about, I can definitely live with that, assuming you don't turn around in another thread and complain about teams with soft draws making finals.

this wildcard system does not improve upon the finals system we have now. Thats my contention.

 

[4THAWN]

Didn’t Collingwood and Melbourne only beat one or two top 8 sides each leading into finals last year?

IIRC it was collingwood who supposedly hadn't beaten anyone good.

 

[kozi]

While Pandora’s box has been opened here’s another one.

Round 23 a team playing 7th who they need to make top 6 as they beat them earlier in the season. 7th is down heavily on percentage and needs a 100+ point win to make the top 6.

100+ point win means both teams make finals. Any other result and both teams miss finals.

How do you think this game will play out? Any system that opens the door to a situation like this is nothing short of a blight on the game. You’d need some serious rocks in your head to approve of it.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Team out of the top 6 who can’t make it sitting pretty with most wins against the top 6. Late in the season they face 6th who they beat earlier in the season.

Said team will do everything in their power to lose the game. If winning means 6th is bundled out of the top 6 they give themselves 1 less win against a top 6 team, effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

Ultimately this opens the door to a win and you miss finals, lose and you make finals situation.

This is the OP’s idea of a “tank proof” system.

The 6th-placed team can be bundled out of the top 6 after the loss, and yet a team with probably 4 or 5 top-6 wins isn't within reach of finishing top 6 themselves. Oh the fantasy. And you just assume this would occur in a vacuum too, quite convenient.

The gaping holes I was referring to was the 5 ways this system would ruin the game which you’re still ignoring.

I've addressed Points 3 and 4 as best as I could multiple times. 1, 2 and 5 I think are simply ridiculous straw-clutching scenarios that wouldn't happen.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Team out of the top 6 who can’t make it sitting pretty with most wins against the top 6. Late in the season they face 6th who they beat earlier in the season.

Said team will do everything in their power to lose the game. If winning means 6th is bundled out of the top 6 they give themselves 1 less win against a top 6 team, effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

Ultimately this opens the door to a win and you miss finals, lose and you make finals situation.

This is the OP’s idea of a “tank proof” system.

Rather a one game tank, than the tanking that 1-4 teams down the bottom accumulate towards the end of year.


I'd suggest that a team with the most wins against top 6 teams would be pretty close to the actual top 6. Plus this scenario could only really happen in the final round - We've already seen the shenanigans that can happen in a final round.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Didn’t Collingwood and Melbourne only beat one or two top 8 sides each leading into finals last year?

Think they both had one each. Of course, they both still would've automatically qualified since they finished in the top 6.

 

[The Swert]

I've read through all this thread and come to a conclusion.

The current system isn't ideal due to inequality of the fixture.

The proposed system also has some drawbacks based on inequality of the fixture.

From a statistical perspective, the only way to smooth out these inequalities is to have a larger sample size. Or in other words a longer season.

It's the only way to ensure that the right teams finish top 6/top 8. It's also the only way to ensure that the right wildcards are selected. If the season is long enough, the two methods should actually approach the same results.

So I propose we start a 10-year 220 game season. That will sort the contenders from the pretenders once and for all!

 

[kozi]

The 6th-placed team can be bundled out of the top 6 after the loss, and yet a team with probably 4 or 5 top-6 wins isn't within reach of finishing top 6 themselves. Oh the fantasy. And you just assume this would occur in a vacuum too, quite convenient.


I've addressed Points 3 and 4 as best as I could multiple times. 1, 2 and 5 I think are simply ridiculous straw-clutching scenarios that wouldn't happen.

Those scenarios aren’t straw clutching, they’re simply a reality. Your argument rests on unlikely = non factor which is plain ridiculous.

You can argue about probability until the cows come home but bottom line is this:

A system which opens the door to scenarios where winning = missing finals and losing = making finals can’t and won’t ever be implemented.

Find it hard to believe you can’t even acknowledge this as an issue with this system, let alone see it as the main reason why it’s a farce.

 

[Pessimistic]

So a weekend with just port v bulldogs and adelaide v fremantle?

Cant decide which one to watch

 

[Pessimistic]

I've read through all this thread and come to a conclusion.

The current system isn't ideal due to inequality of the fixture.

The proposed system also has some drawbacks based on inequality of the fixture.

From a statistical perspective, the only way to smooth out these inequalities is to have a larger sample size. Or in other words a longer season.

It's the only way to ensure that the right teams finish top 6/top 8. It's also the only way to ensure that the right wildcards are selected. If the season is long enough, the two methods should actually approach the same results.

So I propose we start a 10-year 220 game season. That will sort the contenders from the pretenders once and for all!

Two legged games in the first week(s) of finals would overcome the inequities of home and away, im just not sure how that kind of final sits with the footy world

 

[hcd199]

Addressed that on the last page. Wins against top-6 teams aren't arbitrary, the results I've looked into over the years largely suggest it's a sign of a young team on the rise and likely to provide more value to the finals than a downhill skier. Facts and figures indicating the opposite would be quite a compelling argument, so far none have surfaced in the thread.

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.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

At what stage does the AFL have every team in the competition make the finals???

I can see it now...

Finals Round 1
1 v 18
2 v 17
3 v 16
4 v 15
5 v 14
6 v 13
7 v 12
8 v 11
9 v 10

 

[Le Grille]

At what stage does the AFL have every team in the competition make the finals???

I can see it now...

Finals Round 1
1 v 18
2 v 17
3 v 16
4 v 15
5 v 14
6 v 13
7 v 12
8 v 11
9 v 10

Don’t forget the two highest ranked losers get a second crack at it. The fourth and eighth side may challenge the winners of those two encounters

 

[Macpotata]

 

[Macpotata]

At what stage does the AFL have every team in the competition make the finals???

I can see it now...

Finals Round 1
1 v 18
2 v 17
3 v 16
4 v 15
5 v 14
6 v 13
7 v 12
8 v 11
9 v 10

 

[Teen Wolf]

Those scenarios aren’t straw clutching, they’re simply a reality. Your argument rests on unlikely = non factor which is plain ridiculous.

You can argue about probability until the cows come home but bottom line is this:

A system which opens the door to scenarios where winning = missing finals and losing = making finals can’t and won’t ever be implemented.

Find it hard to believe you can’t even acknowledge this as an issue with this system, let alone see it as the main reason why it’s a farce.

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

 

[Billy ray]

Top 7 get week off before finals.
Next two teams from 8-18 with highest percentage play on bye week to get the final spot in the finals.

Thats a wildcard. Relies on percentage to get in. Could be 8v9. Or 11v14.

Encourages teams to not get smashed in season and have percentage clobbered.

 

[Le Grille]

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