Wildcard weekend - yes or no

[Cubs2Lions]

The premiership tally since 2000 if that were the case:

Geelong - 4
Port Adelaide - 4
-------------------
Collingwood - 3
-------------------
Adelaide - 2
Essendon - 2
Hawthorn - 2
Sydney - 2
-------------------
Fremantle - 1
Melbourne - 1
Richmond - 1
St Kilda - 1
West Coast - 1
------------------
Brisbane - 0
Carlton - 0
Gold Coast - 0
GWS - 0
North Melbourne - 0
Western Bulldogs - 0

Now this is what it feels like to not win one

I prefer our 3 premierships back thank-you.

 

[ferball]

Why does 8th?

Because it fits a four week finals series.

It fits the month of September, well close enough anyway and we've had a four week finals series for over 50 years.

Eight is less than half the comp and typically in every competition on Earth the term "finals" is used to describe the last 8 sides or players in the comp.

Changing it to 10 means extending the finals series for another week. That might work with the bye they have between finals and the last H&A round I spose but that bye is a stupid joke anyway.

 

[boncer34]

Because it fits a four week finals series.

It fits the month of September, well close enough anyway and we've had a four week finals series for over 50 years.

Eight is less than half the comp and typically in every competition on Earth the term "finals" is used to describe the last 8 sides or players in the comp.

Changing it to 10 means extending the finals series for another week. That might work with the bye they have between finals and the last H&A round I spose but that bye is a stupid joke anyway.

Only recently?

As for your first point if there was a 10 team series that fit in 4 weeks you'd be ok with it?

 

[GC2015]

Now this is what it feels like to not win one

I prefer our 3 premierships back thank-you.

Brisbane are for sure the biggest beneficiaries of the American style playoffs system as opposed to the first past the post system they use in Europe. Never the best home and away team but certainly knew how to turn it on in September in that early 2000s era. There's legitimate arguments for and against with both premiership criterias but I would suggest there's so many inequalities in the home and away season that a month long playoff series seems like a more fair way of deciding the best team in any given season than simply rewarding the team that finishes first on the ladder.

 

[Munga]

Hell no. They've already ruined the seasons with byes.

 

[ferball]

Only recently?

As for your first point if there was a 10 team series that fit in 4 weeks you'd be ok with it?

Probably not.

Eight is plenty of teams to play finals.

It should be less than half the number of the teams in the comp. (Having eight teams play finals with 16 teams in the comp was stupid imo.) So eight is enough in an 18 or 20 team comp.

Having 10 teams play finals in an 18 team comp is stupid, or in a twenty team comp for that matter. What is the point of a finals series of you don't eliminate over half the competition?

 

[boncer34]

Probably not.

Eight is plenty of teams to play finals.

It should be less than half the number of the teams in the comp. (Having eight teams play finals with 16 teams in the comp was stupid imo.) So eight is enough in an 18 or 20 team comp.

Having 10 teams play finals in an 18 team comp is stupid, or in a twenty team comp for that matter. What is the point of a finals series of you don't eliminate over half the competition?

The 10th placed team was eliminated by an umpiring error. I fail to see why its stupid they make finals.

But agree to disagree.

 

[ferball]

The 10th placed team was eliminated by an umpiring error. I fail to see why its stupid they make finals.

But agree to disagree.

We've missed two GFs due to umpiring "errors". It happens. If the umps had got that right a few weeks ago a different team would have missed the finals.

Finals are brutal. They're sudden death and if you win all of them its an incredible feat. It needs to be hard to make them imo because that makes winning them that much more meaningful. Eventually you guys will win one too and believe me few things will be sweeter after what you have been thru since the last one.

But we don't agree, all good. It'd be a boring world if everyone had the same opinions or thought the same things.

 

[Dan26]

Changing it to 10 means extending the finals series for another week.

No, the final-10 is still a 4-week finals series with 9 finals over 4 weeks. 5 weeks if you move the bye to the week before the Grand Final, so both teams have two weeks to prepare for the years biggest game.

I covered all this in post number 22 of this thread. It’s by far the best system. Getting rid of double chances make them true finals. And it’s by FAR the fairest system.

 

[Truetiger]

AFL be like:

Unfortunately the AFL is no longer a sport, more a business. Anything that provides more money they would look at including this.

 

[ferball]

No, the final-10 is still a 4-week finals series with 9 finals over 4 weeks. 5 weeks if you move the bye to the week before the Grand Final, so both teams have two weeks to prepare for the years biggest game.

I covered all this in post number 22 of this thread. It’s by far the best system. Getting rid of double chances make them true finals. And it’s by FAR the fairest system.

That's still five weeks.

But the bye before the GF doesn't have to be there.

So...

The top teams can be eliminated from the second week onwards, (just like the current final-8) and can't be eliminated in the first week (just like the current final-8)

That's cos they don't play.

You're getting rid of the double chance the top teams get, but that means you are getting rid of the reward they earned for finishing at the top of the ladder.

I can see alot more top sides going out after one loss and after having a week off - that's not really right as far as I'm concerned. The system should reward the best teams in the H&A somehow. One week off isn't really enough of one imo. A team that's dominated the H&A misses the first week of finals and then is out after the second week? Sure it would give the knob heads in the media alot to write about but its kind of unfair on the top teams.

The top teams play two consecutive finals with byes either side (eg bye-win-win-bye- Grand Final). This is far better than the current system, where the top team goes bye-win-bye-win-Grand Final.

I do agree with this tho. Dunno if it makes up for the lack of a double chance but its a better thing for a sides consistency (ie maintaining form instead of losing it thru byes) over the finals series.

 

[Dan26]

That's still five weeks.

But the bye before the GF doesn't have to be there.

It's exactly the same as the current finals series. Nine finals over 4 weeks extended to five weeks with a bye that is used directly before the Grand Final, instead of directly before the first week of finals like the current system.

The top teams can be eliminated from the second week onwards, (just like the current final-8) and can't be eliminated in the first week (just like the current final-8)

That's cos they don't play.

That's the whole point. The bye replaces the double chance, just like it does in the current final-8. Take Collingwood if they beat Melbourne next week and go straight to the Preliminary Final. They don't get a second chance. They can be eliminated after one loss. They can't be eliminated in week 2 of the final-8 because they don't play, because the week off replaces the double chance for them. A guaranteed week off for the top teams in the final-10 makes a double chance irrelevant and not needed.

You're getting rid of the double chance the top teams get, but that means you are getting rid of the reward they earned for finishing at the top of the ladder.

You don't need a double chance to reward someone and the current final-8 proves that. If Collingwood and Brisbane win their Qualifying finals they face elimination after a week off in the Preliminary Finals. THEY DON'T GET A SECOND CHANCE. But they are rewarded by hosting the Preliminary Final AND having a week off.

Under the knockout Final-10, the top two teams:

• have a week off
• get the advantage of playing low seeded teams in the 7-10 range
• they play a team who played the week before while they themselves have a week off.

The above three things are the same advantages the top team gets after a week off in a knockout Preliminary Final under the current system

I can see alot more top sides going out after one loss and after having a week off - that's not really right as far as I'm concerned.

So you don't agree with the top team under the current final-8 going out after one loss in the Preliminary Final after having had a week off? Which is exactly the same thing.

If you lose a final, you're out. That's what finals are - finals. They are about performing on the day. Finals are not about getting second chances for losing.

The system should reward the best teams in the H&A somehow.

It does

One week off isn't really enough of one imo.

Yes it is enough. What do you want instead? Two weeks off?

The top 2 teams have a week off, play the lowest seeded team in their first final, get home ground advantage, and play a team who played the week before while they themselves have a week off. And they can't be eliminated earlier than the second week, which is no different to the current final-8. The week off replaces the double chance, just like it literally does if you win the Qualifying final under the current system.

A team that's dominated the H&A misses the first week of finals and then is out after the second week? Sure it would give the knob heads in the media alot to write about but its kind of unfair on the top teams.

How is this unfair? It happened to Melbourne last year who were out after the second week. They lose two finals, but that is no different to having a week off (which REPLACES) a second chance, and then losing in the second week. Collingwood and Brisbane could both be out after the second week this year. Under a knockout final-10, you can't be eliminated in the first week (because the bye replaces the double chance) but you can be eliminated from the second week onwards - Just like the final-8.

You can be eliminated after one loss, which is also the same as the current final-8 if the top team loses the Preliminary Final.

Finals are about performing on the day. They are not about getting second chances for losing.

 

[ferball]

It's exactly the same as the current finals series. Nine finals over 4 weeks extended to five weeks with a bye that is used directly before the Grand Final, instead of directly before the first week of finals like the current system.

Yeah I know - the bye before finals is stupid.

If you're in the position we were in 2015 - to rest some players and give others a chance to win a spot in a finals team, then you take advantage of it but making everyone have a rest is the same sort of participation medal crap that having half the comp (or more) eligible for finals is.

That's the whole point. The bye replaces the double chance, just like it does in the current final-8. Take Collingwood if they beat Melbourne next week and go straight to the Preliminary Final. They don't get a second chance. They can be eliminated after one loss. They can't be eliminated in week 2 of the final-8 because they don't play, because the week off replaces the double chance for them. A guaranteed week off for the top teams in the final-10 makes a double chance irrelevant and not needed.

You win first week of finals now and you are playing off for a spot in the grand final.

You don't a second chance after that?

Right now the top four teams need to lose twice (in a row) to lose a spot in the preliminary Final and the bottom four teams only have top lose once.

If you finish in the top four you either win and go straight into the play off for a GF spot or you lose and get a second chance. So your reward is a weeks rest and a little bit less risk of losing a player thru suspension or injury. Which is why the pre finals bye is stupid.

the main issue I have with it is there there shouldn't be ten teams playing finals until there are 22 or preferably 24+ in the comp. I think its ludicrous that you play a season of footy that lasts four or five months (ie four if it was a comp where 17 teams played each other once,) then can't eliminate half the competition from playing finals.

 

[Dan26]

You win first week of finals now and you are playing off for a spot in the grand final.

You don't a second chance after that?

Correct. You don't get a guaranteed second chance under the current final-8. If Brisbane win their Qualifying Final, they are then eliminated after one loss. As it should be. Double chances have no place in finals.

Right now the top four teams need to lose twice (in a row) to lose a spot in the preliminary Final and the bottom four teams only have top lose once.

You don't seem to understand that a week off is a direct replacement for a double chance. I'll explain it mathematically:

Under the current system the top 4 teams do NOT get a guaranteed double chance. They get:

• a 50% chance of having a double chance
• a 50% chance of getting a week off (and therefore not getting a second chance)

It is impossible to have both. You only get one or the other.

If you replace the 50% chance of using a double chance and make it 0% and make the week off 100% (that is, a guaranteed week off) then you don't need a second chance. The week off is a direct replacement which it is under the current system.

That's how they do it in the NFL where the top 2 teams out of 12 (used to be the top 4 out of 12, which I think was better) go direct to the second week, where, of course it is knockout.

If you finish in the top four you either win and go straight into the play off for a GF spot or you lose and get a second chance. So your reward is a weeks rest

Exactly. Glad you agree with me. See how you don't need a second chance? Instead of having this stupid system where you have a 50/50 chance of having either a double chance or a week off (but you can't have both), just make it a 100% guaranteed week off. That's your reward.

Finals are not abut getting second chances for losing. That goes against the whole essence of finals. That's why we love the Preliminary Finals and Grand Finals so much. They are knockout as finals should always be.

the main issue I have with it is there there shouldn't be ten teams playing finals until there are 22 or preferably 24+ in the comp. I think its ludicrous that you play a season of footy that lasts four or five months (ie four if it was a comp where 17 teams played each other once,) then can't eliminate half the competition from playing finals.

That's a separate argument. Personally I think 10 is fine. We had 8 out of 16 make it, then we increased the amount of teams by two to 18, but kept the amount of finalists the same.

In 1994, the AFL moved to a final-8 in a 15-team league where more teams made it than missed and it worked fine. The AFL is not just a sport, it is also in the entertainment business and reducing the amount of dead rubbers is good for fans and broadcasters alike.

 

[The Educator]

OK so we have two common Bigfooty phenomena warping this thread:

1. Ignorance asserting itself as authority
2. Subjectivity confusing itself as objectivity

1. Addressing ignorance asserting itself as authority

The current system gives teams that finish in the top four a double chance of advancing to a preliminary final.

In raw probability terms, this gives teams that finish top 4 a 75% chance of playing in a preliminary final. If all you qualify for is a straight knockout quarter final, you have a 50% chance of qualifying for a preliminary final.

2. Addressing subjectivity confusing itself as objectivity

There is neither an empirical or mathematical proof, nor a divine law chiseled on a stone, that says a final has to be a knockout.

The VFL / AFL has had forms of double chance in nearly every finals series in its 127 year history. The current final 8 is like a helix version of the mcyntire final four that was in place for the best part of half a century (The mcyntire final four gave the top two teams a double chance of making the grand final).

Actually, short of being chiseled into stone, it almost is diving genius. It has the following features:

• it provide better reward for effort from a 22/23 week home and away season
• It creates a very real incentive to finish in the top 4 versus the bottom 4 in the 8
• it creates narrative complexity to the finals in giving losing qualifying finalists a path back to the premiership (generally much tougher)
• It means the premiership team generally has to beat the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best team on the way to the premiership

In terms of the thread, I am increasingly of the view that a wild card round might add value overall. If you just have 7th to 10th playoff, it would mean a real advantage finishing 5th / 6th over 7th to 10th. This would add more to last few rounds of the season then you might lose by lowering the bar to qualify for play off games.

Important to remember though:

• There are measurable trade offs between different finals systems
• These trade-offs are mostly between qualitative factors for which are unavoidably subjective in comparison

 

[Natho]

* no. Participation awards. Turn it up.

 

[tugga]

If you'd asked me even 12 months ago I would have absolutely said 'no'.
But if the AFL is going to persist with this nonsense prefinals bye week, then it's a 'yes' from me now.
It's not finals. It's a play-in to decide the final two spots in the eight.
Imagine having a game tonight and a game tomorrow? Would be great.
And this year, both would be in Sydney. What a great way to showcase the sport in NSW when rugby league has a standalone round of matches with zero competition from the AFL.

 

[ferball]

Correct. You don't get a guaranteed second chance under the current final-8. If Brisbane win their Qualifying Final, they are then eliminated after one loss. As it should be. Double chances have no place in finals.



You don't seem to understand that a week off is a direct replacement for a double chance. I'll explain it mathematically:

Under the current system the top 4 teams do NOT get a guaranteed double chance. They get:

• a 50% chance of having a double chance
• a 50% chance of getting a week off (and therefore not getting a second chance)

It is impossible to have both. You only get one or the other.

If you replace the 50% chance of using a double chance and make it 0% and make the week off 100% (that is, a guaranteed week off) then you don't need a second chance. The week off is a direct replacement which it is under the current system.

That's how they do it in the NFL where the top 2 teams out of 12 (used to be the top 4 out of 12, which I think was better) go direct to the second week, where, of course it is knockout.


Exactly. Glad you agree with me. See how you don't need a second chance? Instead of having this stupid system where you have a 50/50 chance of having either a double chance or a week off (but you can't have both), just make it a 100% guaranteed week off. That's your reward.

Finals are not abut getting second chances for losing. That goes against the whole essence of finals. That's why we love the Preliminary Finals and Grand Finals so much. They are knockout as finals should always be.


That's a separate argument. Personally I think 10 is fine. We had 8 out of 16 make it, then we increased the amount of teams by two to 18, but kept the amount of finalists the same.

In 1994, the AFL moved to a final-8 in a 15-team league where more teams made it than missed and it worked fine. The AFL is not just a sport, it is also in the entertainment business and reducing the amount of dead rubbers is good for fans and broadcasters alike.

It wasn't the clearest post so i'll just make it simple. The top four teams have the following bonuses for being in the top four.

The win and go straight into the play off for the GF.

They lose and get a second chance to go into the play off for the GF.

And this is how it should stay. Because the top four teams deserve some sort of reward for being in the top 25% of the comp over the H&A season that separates them from the bottom four teams in the eight.

You don't seem to understand that playing finals is the reward for the elite teams in the comp. There should be less teams in the eight, ie we should go back to a final five or six sides imo.

What's the point of having finals if half the comp play in them?

 

[ferball]

If you'd asked me even 12 months ago I would have absolutely said 'no'.
But if the AFL is going to persist with this nonsense prefinals bye week, then it's a 'yes' from me now.
It's not finals. It's a play-in to decide the final two spots in the eight.
Imagine having a game tonight and a game tomorrow? Would be great.
And this year, both would be in Sydney. What a great way to showcase the sport in NSW when rugby league has a standalone round of matches with zero competition from the AFL.

So we should scrap the pre finals bye.

A side effect of that would be that we don't have bored footy fans starting threads like this or the one suggesting the Coleman Medal should be decided by something other than who kicks the most goals in the H&A.

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

Move the elimination finals to the bye weekend. 'Wildcard weekend' is to get into the top six. Top 4 get a week off. Bye moves to week before GF. Simples.

 

[tugga]

So we should scrap the pre finals bye.

A side effect of that would be that we don't have bored footy fans starting threads like this or the one suggesting the Coleman Medal should be decided by something other than who kicks the most goals in the H&A.

You could have just stopped after the first sentence and that would have nailed it.

 

[ferball]

You could have just stopped after the first sentence and that would have nailed it.

I'm putting the boot into that Coleman thread every chance I can.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Eight is already too many, bring back the final 5!! The best and fairest system of all

 

[PT Bar None]

The reasons for 'nay' are all long understood.

And yet here we are, with it being "trialled" in the VFL and marketed as something it's not (Wildcard vs top 10). So irregardless (sic) the AFL is planning on sliding it in at some point.

I think fans need to make peace with the AFL being an entertainment product more than a competition, or walk away.

I watched a series of Battlebots recently. The whole "competition" was obviously structured to maintain meaning/interest in the non finals matches for as long as possible. Regular season was each bot having 4 or 5 fights. Finals was a seeded 16. Picked by "judges". But they also had some "play in" mini-tourneys where a guaranteed spot in the final 16 was the reward.

No way it works for a real competition, but I reckon Gil probably watched it too...

 

[deck]

The reasons for 'nay' are all long understood.

And yet here we are, with it being "trialled" in the VFL and marketed as something it's not (Wildcard vs top 10). So irregardless (sic) the AFL is planning on sliding it in at some point.

So far so good. The so called wildcard games were one sided floggings. And now one of the wildcard winners is getting a hammering.

The problem with this system is you are giving teams 5 & 6 a advantage over the teams above. 5 & 6 get a week off and play against a opponent who hasn't. How does this roll on with the next week a games. We know now winning the Qualifying final is no longer the advantage it once was with the winners going at 50% in Prelims. Inserting other oddities that could potentially help the lower teams can't be a good thing.