True Wildcard System Considered by the AFL, Revisited

[Teen Wolf]

Why does the AFL endorse air travel, there's a potential risk the plane could go down and wipe out a team. Similar risk with cars/buses. Horse and cart ftw.

And why bother with a salary cap. Teams could rort it and in fact they're incentivised to do so, undermining the competition as a whole.

You genuinely can't argue with that brand of logic.

This was a suggestion back in 2012 if I'm not mistaken?

Yeahhh I kinda alluded to that in the thread title and sorta kinda absolutely expressly stated it in the OP. Bit awkward.

 

[kozi]

Why does the AFL endorse air travel, there's a potential risk the plane could go down and wipe out a team. Similar risk with cars/buses. Horse and cart ftw.

And why bother with a salary cap. Teams could rort it and in fact they're incentivised to do so, undermining the competition as a whole.

You genuinely can't argue with that brand of logic.

When a system potentially leads to a bottom 4 team winning the premiership it can’t and won’t be introduced. Case closed.

If you can’t grasp this I’m afraid all hope is lost.

 

[Teen Wolf]

When a system can potentially lead to a bottom 4 team winning the premiership it can’t and won’t be introduced. Case closed.

If you can’t grasp this I’m afraid all hope is lost.

Nah I think you're wrong about some, and possibly all, of that.

 

[kozi]

Nah I think you're wrong about some, and possibly all, of that.

Just need to get your head around the fact that even if it’s a 1% chance of happening it can’t and won’t be introduced.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

This is a great idea for when the AFL runs out of ways it can **** the game up even further

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Just get rid of the bye week ffs. Top 8 is generous enough. AFL’s fascination with all things NFL is annoying.

Wildcard actually has a purpose in the divisional system of the NFL.

 

[Dazzler9]

Why does the AFL endorse air travel, there's a potential risk the plane could go down and wipe out a team. Similar risk with cars/buses. Horse and cart ftw.

And why bother with a salary cap. Teams could rort it and in fact they're incentivised to do so, undermining the competition as a whole.

You genuinely can't argue with that brand of logic.


Yeahhh I kinda alluded to that in the thread title and sorta kinda absolutely expressly stated it in the OP. Bit awkward.

I don't think any of that is helping your argument bro.

 

[BigVic]

Not a huge fan of this proposal at all. Leave the Finals system alone

 

[doppleganger]

When a system potentially leads to a bottom 4 team winning the premiership it can’t and won’t be introduced. Case closed.

If you can’t grasp this I’m afraid all hope is lost.

Agree with that.

But the idea of actually creating real ‘wildcard’ that actually takes into account the fixture imbalance has merit.

Example, last year the impact of the fixture on teams.

Melbourne played only 4 H&A games against the top4 WC, Coll, Rich and Haw and went 1-3 in them. Essendon had to play those teams in H&A 7 times and went 1-6 in them.

Essendon only actually lost four other games all season, compared to Melbourne who lost five.

Yet Melbourne and Essendon were compared against each other on the single H&A ladder, despite having completely different H&A fixtures. Flip the double up games and Essendon play finals, and Melbourne miss out!

So an actual ‘wildcard’ type system that attempts to ignore the H&A ladder position (which is flawed) and actually come up with a ‘best of the rest’ that attempts to acknowledge the flaws in the fixture is worthy of consideration.

Especially to determine the last couple of spots in terms of which teams qualify for finals...which can often be determined by ease/difficulty of fixtures.

 

[Dazzler9]

Why does the AFL endorse air travel, there's a potential risk the plane could go down and wipe out a team. Similar risk with cars/buses. Horse and cart ftw.

And why bother with a salary cap. Teams could rort it and in fact they're incentivised to do so, undermining the competition as a whole.

You genuinely can't argue with that brand of logic.


Yeahhh I kinda alluded to that in the thread title and sorta kinda absolutely expressly stated it in the OP. Bit awkward.

"Why does the AFL endorse air travel"
Do they? Where can I find their official 'endorsement'? Maybe they have official travel partners or some such? OK, next point...

"there's a potential risk the plane could go down and wipe out a team. Similar risk with cars/buses."
yep. But imagine a method of travel where the potential was zero. The proposal in question allows the potential for a wooden spooner to win the flag. The current top 8 system gives zero potential to wooden spooners winning the flag. Or to put things in your terms, a zero death toll. Surely that's better? Or would you prefer to risk lives?

"And why bother with a salary cap. Teams could rort it and in fact they're incentivised to do so, undermining the competition as a whole."
Teams that illegally rort it get punished. Hi Carlton.
Teams that play within it's parameters are perfectly entitled to do so.

I think we're done. Good day

 

[Dazzler9]

Agree with that.

But the idea of actually creating real ‘wildcard’ that actually takes into account the fixture imbalance has merit.

This is worthy of rational discussion and I agree with you.

The AFL raised the possibility of the 17-5 system a couple of years ago, which tried to address the fixture imbalances. It had some good points but was quickly shot down (at least on BF).

 

[doppleganger]

This is worthy of rational discussion and I agree with you.

The AFL raised the possibility of the 17-5 system a couple of years ago, which tried to address the fixture imbalances. It had some good points but was quickly shot down (at least on BF).

Only problem being it didn’t address any imbalance!!

Of the initial 17, some teams would have 9 home games v others with 8

And then you have the inherent problems of how to then allocate the remaining 5 games as per groups re H&A. If you are rewarding higher ranked teams with the extra home game, could have situation where some teams end up with 12 home games and others just 10?

Then the question of why bother with the bottom 6 playing against each other again? Who will watch?

And even the top six, if they are all guaranteed places in the finals...why bother with another set of grading games would end up with meh dead rubbers like Pies v Geelong R23 in 2011 when it was 1 v 2 but nothing to play for!

If the AFL is locked in on a 22 week H&A qualification season before finals, the only logical solution is to split the competition into smaller divisions with seperate division ladders at the start of a season.

 

[Topkent]

Last year we beat Adelaide when they were 4th by 90 odd points and the Roos when they were 5th by 5 goals yet by the end of the year they were out of the 8 so we 'hadnt beaten a top 8 team' it's a ludicrous system

 

[Scotland]

There are no wildcards in the AFL. You either make the top 8 or you don't. Having a final 10 with 7, 8, 9, 10 playing off during the bye week is just extending the finals to 10 sides.

The only way any wildcard has merit is if you split the comp into two 9 team H&A conferences and come up with a system that isn't just the 4 best from each.

 

[Tandy]

No issue with it. But would rather top 9 with 18 teams

 

[Billy ray]

This is worthy of rational discussion and I agree with you.

The AFL raised the possibility of the 17-5 system a couple of years ago, which tried to address the fixture imbalances. It had some good points but was quickly shot down (at least on BF).

Only way to address it is by having double up games worth 2 premiership points such that you can only win (or lose) at most 4 points against any side.

 

[Teen Wolf]

"Why does the AFL endorse air travel"
Do they? Where can I find their official 'endorsement'? Maybe they have official travel partners or some such? OK, next point...

"there's a potential risk the plane could go down and wipe out a team. Similar risk with cars/buses."
yep. But imagine a method of travel where the potential was zero. The proposal in question allows the potential for a wooden spooner to win the flag. The current top 8 system gives zero potential to wooden spooners winning the flag. Or to put things in your terms, a zero death toll. Surely that's better? Or would you prefer to risk lives?

Simple risk management, a less desirable result that has no real chance of arising isn't a compelling deterrent for any organisation.

"And why bother with a salary cap. Teams could rort it and in fact they're incentivised to do so, undermining the competition as a whole."
Teams that illegally rort it get punished. Hi Carlton.
Teams that play within it's parameters are perfectly entitled to do so.

I think we're done. Good day

So how about punishing teams who tank to manipulate outcomes, why is that so unfathomable.

 

[Teen Wolf]

This is a great idea for when the AFL runs out of ways it can fu** the game up even further

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?

Wildcard actually has a purpose in the divisional system of the NFL.

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

 

[HairyO]

16 teams with a Final 6.

Not enough quality players. Not enough quality coaches. Not enough quality umpires.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Last year we beat Adelaide when they were 4th by 90 odd points and the Roos when they were 5th by 5 goals yet by the end of the year they were out of the 8 so we 'hadnt beaten a top 8 team' it's a ludicrous system

How does Melbourne's situation last year hold any particular relevance. They did beat top 8 teams (WCE, GWS) and they finished 5th on the ladder so the proposal would've had no effect on them anyway.

 

[HeHateMe]

We need to fix the draft first,

Id Lottery the Bottom 8 Picks.

Give 9th & 10th the 10th & 9th pick.

Give Priority Picks after 10 to clubs that finish Bottom 4 multiple years in a row.

 

[Final Siren]

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?

The version where it's the same Top 8 system but you insert 7v10 and 8v9 into that bye weekend is an okay idea. It kind of robs Peter to pay Paul, because you lose the excitement of WILL WE SCRAPE INTO THE TOP 8 in order to create interest in WILL WE MAKE TOP 10, but it's not completely awful.

The version where what really matters is your record against the Top 6 is completely awful. 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.

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!

 

[citizen-erased]

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.

 

[demondavey]

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’.

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?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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

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.