Play Nice Views on the current Finals System

[EssendonNick]

The only thing I believe that could be improved in the current system is to introduce seeding.
If all the higher ranked teams win against the lower finishing teams in the first two weeks of the finals, the minor premier ends up having to play team 3 in the prelim. While team 2 gets, on paper anyway, the easier prelim against team 4.

 

[Heardy_101]

If all the higher ranked teams win against the lower finishing teams in the first two weeks of the finals, the minor premier ends up having to play team 3 in the prelim. While team 2 gets, on paper anyway, the easier prelim against team 4.

That's what usually happens when 1st and 2nd win in first week and 3rd and 4th win in the second week, or was this what you meant?

 

[EssendonNick]

That's what usually happens when 1st and 2nd win in first week and 3rd and 4th win in the second week, or was this what you meant?

Yep.

 

[emuboy]

Essendon Nick, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the 2nd & 3rd week finals. It is ridiculous that if the Top 4 play in the preliminaries, 1st plays 3rd, while 2nd plays 4th. Change this, and you fix the finals system.

Did you know that under the current finals system if 1st & 2nd win the qualifying finals, 8th upsets 5th in the elimination finals, with 3rd & 8th then winning the semi finals, the preliminary finals will be 1 v 3 & 2 v 8? Ridiculous! Another huge weakness is that if 1st or 2nd slip up in the qualifying finals, it becomes impossible for them to meet in the GF.

People bleat about the need to avoid repeat finals, but the Final 5 is the Citizen Kane of finals systems, and the QF & PF, QF & GF, 2SF & GF could all be the same. In any case if 2nd & 3rd play out a 7-point thriller in the QF, and then meet for an exciting preliminary final decided by 5 points 2 weeks later is that a bad thing?

Under the Final 5, there would sometimes be very different results by teams that met twice in the finals. In 1985, Hawthorn thrashed the Bulldogs by 95 points in the QF, but the PF was a thriller, with the result in doubt until close to the end. And in 1989 Geeling lost to Essendon by 76 points in the QF, but beat them by 94 points just 2 weeks later to advance to the GF.

As for the McIntyre Final 8 system, all I can say is that my thoughts mirror those of the headmaster from Billy Madison, when he hears Billy's reflections in literature speech. The Final 6 wasn't much better.

 

[Gibbke]

Top sentence doesn't make sense...

 

[Heardy_101]

I don't see a problem with the cross-over from the Semi's to the Prelims. Otherwise in Week 3 you would get 1v4 and 2v3 again. Not always a bad thing but I think the finals as they stand are fine. Thank god they didn't make it a Top 9 or Top 10...

 

[kickazz]

Another huge weakness is that if 1st or 2nd slip up in the qualifying finals, it becomes impossible for them to meet in the GF.

I used to see this as a weakness too - but not so much any more. It's finals time, and if 3rd beats 2nd, then they now are unofficially the second placed team from that point. Indeed, if Sydney beat Adelaide on Saturday, both sides will have the same number of wins/losses for the year, with Sydney a higher %age. So they are the second best team. OK, I know sometimes there will be a bigger gap in premiership points so this example is a bit flimsy, but the premise holds true - the stakes in the final are essentially playing for the 'seeding' in the remainder of the finals. If 1st and/or 2nd win, they keep their seeding - if they lose, then they are no longer the best or second best.

If I were to have a criticism, it's that mathematically 1-4 all have the same chance, as do 5-8. Home finals do play a part, but to take this year for example, Hawks and Pies have the same chance as the game is at a neutral venue.

But overall I think it works well. I used to be all about the Final 5 and how good it was. But the fact that you got repeated finals just seems like a real anachronism now. Take 1989 for example - Geelong played Essendon twice, but got through to the Grannie becuase they won the Prelim not the QF.

I also kinda like the Argus system in a sh1t sort of way and the way it game the minor premier a decent advantage. No way you could go back to it though, given the uncertainity of whether "this weekend's game" was the last for the year or not, but the right to a re-match was a unique and kinda cool feature.

 

[Mr Worldwide]

the problem i have with the current system is that it is unfair in an 18 team competition. more than half of teams now miss out on a shot at september glory, which is a bit boring IMO

so, me and my buddies have come up with a wild card weekend idea that would be a win-win for everyone (don't worry its not like garry lyon's weird arse one)

ok so at the end of the year, for teams placed 1-6 it would be business as usual: i.e. teams placed 1 & 2 get a home qualifying final, 3 &4 get the double chance and 5 & 6 get a home elimination final
BUT
these teams would get a week off whilst teams placed 7-10 would compete in a knockout wildcard round before the finals. 7th would play at home against 10th, whilst 8th would hot 8th. the finer of 7th v 10th would take on 5th and 8th/9th would play 6th.

from then on, its business as usual

sorry for the rant, i wont include why i think this would be such a good system as my post is long enough already, so please if you have any feedback let me know

 

[hitthepost]

Mr Worldwide
sounds alright really. IMO having just under half the teams qualify for september is a good balance, keeps them at a slight premium.
Perhaps we could kill 2 birds with 1 stone and, in the last 5 weeks, instead of playing double-up games, have some playoffs
Rounds 1-18, play each team once, and a bye
Rounds 19-23, once each in 3 pools: 1-6, 7-12, 13-18. Top teams each bracket get 3 more home games, bottom teams 2 more.
1-6 are playing off for home finals
7-12 are playing off to make finals
13-18 playing off for pride and maybe you gotta win more games here for draft picks
Continue on the premiership points from rounds 1-18, and after each team has played their 22 games, you still have a top 8 to play finals as we have them now. Means you're guaranteed double-ups against teams of your own level, but it does mean the possibility of no 2 showdowns/derbies/qclash etc

 

[Mr Worldwide]

hitthepost im not really sure your system would be ideal for the fans or broadcasters. it is of course a fairer system than mine in terms of home and away games but it would result in 3 dead rubber games a week for over a month. who the hell would want to attend or watch these games? plus 5 weeks playing intense qualifying footy against the best teams in the league would result in the 1-6 teams being left battered and bruised before september rolls around.

however, IMO the wildcard idea would deliver 2 cracker games of do or die footy, as well as prolonging the season for teams who previously were ruled out of making the 8 by around round 10. whilst teams like richmond realistically had their finals hopes done for with over a month before the end of the season, the opportunity to qualify for the big dance would keep things interesting for the majority of teams for as long as possible

 

[LachyH]

Finals are about sudden death. Performing on the day.

They are NOT about getting second chances for losing.



No it wasn't. It had a number of idiotic things about it

1.) 1st and 2nd would normally play each other before the Grand Final in the 2nd semi final. What kind of stupid system allows the anti-climax of the "Grand Final match-up" before the Grand Final itself. The finals series should build and build towards the best teams playong each other.

2.)In 1982 Richmond (top of the ladder) beat Carlton (who finished 3rd) in the 2nd-semi. Carlton got a second chance for losing. The two teams then met in the Grand Final, Carlton won and Richmond were out after one loss to a team they had already proved they could beat. YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVE YOU CAN BEAT A TEAM TWICE IN THE SAME FINAL SERIES. You only need to prove you can beat them once.

3.) The first-week Qualifying Final between 2nd and 3rd was an irrelevant money-making match that didn't need to be played. Think about it. If you don't play that match, you can "pretend" that 2nd wins and 3rd loses. That means the Elimination final between 4th and 5th would be the only match in the first week of the finals.

Then, in the second week, you have 1v2, and 3rd versus the winner iof the elimination final. You can totally get rid of the Qualfying Final by assuming 2nd beats 3rd and putting the two teams in the finals they would be in, if this event happened.

The only proper and correct way to conduct a final series that concludes with a knockout Grand Final is to have it knockout all the way through.

What a brilliant post! I never liked the final 5 either. In theory, it was alright, on paper it looked nice, but when you sat down and watch it unfold time and time again, you could really see there were some major flaws. An example of what could go wrong with this system was the two Essendon/Geelong finals of 1989. Essendon smashed us 24.13 to 11.15 in the QF, two weeks later we turn the tables and win 24.20 to 10.10. If Essendon were good enough to win a final against the Cats, we didn't deserve to get another chance at winning. Obviously, we got a great Grand Final between the Hawks and the Cats, one of the very best, but it should never have come about the way it did. I agree completely with everything you said. It was just an extension of the final 4, which in my opinion, is the best, most flawless system ever made. The current final 8 is wonderful too, as it's basically the final 4 played twice.

 

[Gibbke]

Well, you need to get your story straight there fellas...one of you labels any sort of rematch between finalists as a sin against God, the other reckons the Final 4 is God's gift to footy despite the fact the most common matchup in the GF was a repeat of the Second Semi...

The Final 4 and 5 are both about outlasting your opponents over the course of the month, unlike the previous system which up until 1930-something was a straight knockout before the obligatory challenge match...I'm not sure why this is so reprehensible to you guys, considering the vast array of final systems around the world which involve all sorts of rematches (after 130 years and countless rematches, Aus finally won the America's Cup 4-3), qualification (did anyone ever fully understand Australia's path to WC Soccer before they joined Asia?) and home ground issues (soccer takes two games to find a finals winner). Never mind the World Series, NBA, etc, which are all played in a series...

Besides, if you read the rest of Dan's post, you'll see the 1982 VFL finals don't support his argument at all...and it's hard to argue the best two teams didn't contest the 1989 GF...the Five didn't fail us often if at all...

 

[LachyH]

Well, you need to get your story straight there fellas...one of you labels any sort of rematch between finalists as a sin against God, the other reckons the Final 4 is God's gift to footy despite the fact the most common matchup in the GF was a repeat of the Second Semi...

The Final 4 and 5 are both about outlasting your opponents over the course of the month, unlike the previous system which up until 1930-something was a straight knockout before the obligatory challenge match...I'm not sure why this is so reprehensible to you guys, considering the vast array of final systems around the world which involve all sorts of rematches (after 130 years and countless rematches, Aus finally won the America's Cup 4-3), qualification (did anyone ever fully understand Australia's path to WC Soccer before they joined Asia?) and home ground issues (soccer takes two games to find a finals winner). Never mind the World Series, NBA, etc, which are all played in a series...

Besides, if you read the rest of Dan's post, you'll see the 1982 VFL finals don't support his argument at all...and it's hard to argue the best two teams didn't contest the 1989 GF...the Five didn't fail us often if at all...

That's a fair argument mate. I think, from my point of view, the final 4 was simple and effective. When the five was introduced, I think it looked very nice, there were more games, and an extra team got to contest the finals. But if you scraped off some of the nice new shine, you saw there were some problems with the system. Yes, there were often repeated games in the final 4, but I don't have a problem with Grand Finals being repeats of other finals games, often, that is unavoidable (2005 and 2006 West Coast and Sydney played QFs as well). But I don't like QFs and PFs being the same match ups (like the Dons and the Cats in 1989). With the double chance set up, it is unavoidable that we will get some repeat finals on Grand Final day. My problem is not repeated match ups, but repeated match ups before Grand Final day, which the final five was guilty of many times. I just think to play two finals between the same teams before the Grand Final, you are trivializing the result of the first final and potentially reversing the result. At least on Grand Final day, it's the end, winner takes all, and that's just the way it is. I hope this makes some sense.

 

[Patron]

The current finals system is good. I wouldn't change it.

 

[FootyJunkie]

The current finals system is good. I wouldn't change it.

My only gripe about it is Week 2.

Very hard to get excited about it in the lead up when results go the same way 90% of the time.

But there are no better alternatives.

 

[swiftdog]

For all the flak the EPL gets, they really do have the perfect competition structure. Unfortunately, one home and one away game versus every team in the competition is never going to happen in the AFL without culling a fair few teams. We need a finals system that makes up for inadequacies in the fixture and, as the Americans have done, I think that a conference system is the only way to go. This competition structure has definitely been mentioned on BF before but I'm not sure if the finals system has:

Two 9 team conferences (5 Vic, 4 Interstate), One home and one away match versus every team within your conference and one inter-conference match makes for a 25 game H&A season. Top 5 teams from each conference makes finals. The bonus with this system is that in order to make finals, teams are competing against other teams that have almost an identical fixture (the only discrepancy being a home versus an away match against any given team in the other conference). As such, a team's position on the ladder isn't determined by a weak draw, as every team within the same conference plays the same teams the same amount of times.

There needs to be one big difference to the American style of finals/playoff system. We can't have a system were teams within the same conference can't play each other in the grand final. It doesn't fit in to the Australian sporting landscape and the public, especially the traditionalists, wouldn't stand for it. I propose a top 5 for each conference where the first 2 weeks of finals are intra-conference, the 3rd week of finals is inter-conference, and the grand final can be either intra or inter-conference depending on preliminary final results.

How the finals work:
For arguments sake, I'll split the comp into a "traditional" teams/rivalries conference (Barrassi) and an alternate (Matthews) conference (I think the NFL may have done something similar to this with the NFC being more traditional the the AFC but I'm not quite sure. Regardless;

Barrassi Conference (and their final placings based on 2012):
1. Sydney (South Melbourne connection)
2. Collingwood
3. Carlton
4. Essendon
5. Richmond
6. Brisbane (Fitzroy connection)
7. Melbourne
8. Gold Coast
9. Greater Western Sydney

Matthews Conference:
1. Hawthorn
2. Adelaide
3. West Coast
4. Geelong
5. Fremantle
6. North Melbourne
7. St.Kilda
8. Port Adelaide
9. Western Bulldogs

Week 1:
Teams 1-3 in each conference get a week off, 4th vs 5th within each conference play each other in an elimination final. For arguments sake:
Essendon def Richmond
Geelong def Fremantle
Essendon and Geelong advance whilst Richmond and Fremantle are eliminated.

Week 2:
Two more groups of intra-conference matches. 1st place versus winner of elimination final. 2nd versus 3rd.
BC: Sydney def Essendon
BC: Collingwood def Carlton
MC: Hawthorn def Geelong
MC: Adelaide def West Coast
Winners advance, losers are eliminated.

Week 3:
Preliminary finals are inter-conference. The higher ranked team in one conference plays the lower ranked team in the alternate conference and vice-versa.
Sydney def Adelaide
Hawthorn def Collingwood

Week 4:
As it has been for a while now, the winners of the preliminary finals play off in the grand final. Some years it will be an inter-conference grand final, other years it will be 2 teams from either the Matthews or Barrassi conference.
Sydney def Hawthorn - Sydney are premiers.

What do you think? It's not perfect (anything outside of the EPL system isn't perfect) but I think it's much fairer than what we have now. The obvious problem is the potential for lopsided conference (the Matthews conference is far stronger than the Barrassi conference in this example) but this will be mitigated somewhat with equal fixtures within a conference. Also, GWS and GCS won't be horrible forever. People undoubtedly won't like the teams allocated to each conference but it may actually help the struggling teams, all of a sudden a North vs Freo match becomes important where normally no-one would care, as does a Richmond vs Brisbane match. Regardless, this post is about the system rather than who is in each conference.

 

[Gibbke]

If you put interstaters in with Vics in a division, you make them travel while the Vics do proportionately the same number of trips as already exists - an inequity right there. It's a big issue for interstaters, and directly affects their seasonal performances. In England, you travel on the bus to get to your away games, unless you're a super rich team, in which case your plane trip is inconsequential...since WA teams make a round trip between 5000 and 8000km ten weeks of the year before finals, the EPL is irrelevant to any argument about AFL fixturing...

4 divisions - WA and SA, NSW and Qld, and 2 Vic divisions. Each division winner goes through to the top 4 ranked by performance, then the next 4 best teams across all the divs get spots 5-8...same final 8 system applies...importantly, each team gets the same amount of travel and the same roster of opponents when ranked against their ladder opponents, plus you preserve rivalries, which are the most important roster matches for any team...

To alleviate a big potential problem while divisions such as NSW/Qld have such poor teams (e.g. Sydney would have won the division with a lazy 10.5 wins, which was this year's 12th spot), a division winner must achieve a certain WL record (say, better than whatever 9th gets that season...we can call this the Richmond Clause) or be thrown back in the mix with the other finalists...you'd think it will only ever be one div winner a season who sucks this badly...

In any case, Andy and Gillon have said they've looked at conferences and found they present problems that they believe are disadvantageous v the current scenario (outside the ranking scenario above, I'm not sure what they could be, but they get paid to study this, I guess...), so this is all moot regardless...

 

[swiftdog]

Sounds good in theory, and I thought about small 4 and 5 team divisions rather than conferences but think it will be too hard to implement in the AFL. Firstly, the Vic divisions would have 5 teams compared to 4 teams in the other two divisions. Look around this forum and see the views of the vast majority of people on "Americanisation" of the AFL, they would tear down AFL house if it was so much easier for one group of teams to make top 4 compared to others.

The other big issue with small divisions is how to go about fixturing. It's not an issue in the NBA and NHL as they have 82 game regular seasons however it would become an issue for the AFL. I would think we might need to head down the path of the NFL for this to happen. This would mean that you don't play every other team throughout the year. I think with divisions you want the emphasis to be on intra-division competition, which demands that the majority of matches are played within-division. Essentially, you want the division ladders for the most part to be a reflection of how good those teams are compared to each other. Too many games against teams outside of your division and the Adelaide of 2012 debate will resurface, as in: "team x won their division compared to team y because they had an easier run outside of their division" or "team x played Melbourne and the Bulldogs in Melbourne whilst team Y played Hawthorn and Collingwood in Melbourne". Like above, I don't think the Australian public will like the implementation of an NFL-style structure into the AFL.

I don't think that the travel factor is a big a deal as it is made out to be. No doubt the WA and SA teams are somewhat disadvantaged to their eastern seaboard counterparts, but results from at least the NHL (I think the NBA as well) seem to tell us that travel isn't that big a deal. It is debated in the NHL and NBA that the Western Conference teams are disadvantaged compared to the Eastern Conference due to travel. Interestingly, the President's Trophy in the NHL (team with the best regular season record) has been dominated by Western Conference teams in the 7 seasons since the 04-05 lockout (5 western teams versus 2 eastern teams) and there is a 4-3 split in favour of Western Conference teams in terms of Stanley Cup champions (although I'm not sure that SC champions is the best method to use seeing as there is always a 50-50 chance of the champions being Western or Eastern). I don't know the exact stats for the NBA but my impression was that in general the West usually produced the Champion team due to the likes of LA and San Antonio (I could very well be wrong though). Regardless, as long as 55% of the AFL is based in one state and the other 45% is spread out over four states there will always be travel issues, no matter what system is implemented.

As Gibbke just said though all of this is probably academic and likely just serves as a means for me to procrastinate. It would be interesting to see Andy and Gillon's disadvantages with a conference system versus the current system. I have a sneaking suspicion it might be more to do with league revenue rather than the integrity of the competition though. I would love to see a conference system

 

[Gibbke]

Those guys do road trips in seasons that last anything between 80-160 games depending on the sport. Here, the Player's Association doesn't condone any game that's less than six days after the last one...

A four conference system would have two fours and two fives, but either way it's the best records who get positions 5-8, and there's room for expansion...a 20 team comp would play a 23 game season, an 18 team comp would play 20/21 depending on the division, which you could then balance out with derbies...

Fans wouldn't be an issue...interstate teams were added, finals systems changed, teams relocated to shared big stadiums (which is the biggest issue for any game attending fan), amongst a million other changes, e.g. tv coverage...they'd get over it...it's the BF internet intellectuals who make the most noise, but even they'd jump on board...!

And once again, disclaimer...despite the frequent posts on this subject, I'm happy with things the way they are...!

 

[Perry Pie]

I think the current finals system is pretty close to perfect. The only change that could be made is 1v3 and 2v4 in week 1 so that the prelims (if they go to seeding) will be 1v4 and 2v3 - but in all fairness I am sick of changing things without a really good reason so would probably prefer to keep it as now.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I think the system we have is as good as its realistically going to get. Eight is, for me, too many but there is no way it will drop and the current system is a good version of a final eight.
I'm not a big fan of the cross-over and don't care if the same sides match up twice, but can understand why it is done. Leave it.
As for divisions, conferences, pools, groups, etc; I fail to see the point. A weak conference is quite liekly to give at least as big an advantage as an easy fixture as things currently stand, likewise a hard conference and hard fixture.
I would like to see some transparency in the fixture process, and a systematic approach, but that is outside the scope of a "finals system" thread.