Avoiding Finals Second Chances Elimination Only

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
The top team would always play the lowest winner which in that case would team 7. Hence 1 v 7.

There would not be any problems as if 1 lost they are still playing a lower ranked team on the day therefore the advantage is there.

I think the weirdest scenario would be 1 has weeks break
2 v7 winner 7
3 v 6 winner 6
4 v 5 winner 5

Then week 2: 1 v 7: winner 7
5 v 6: winner 6

Grand Final: 6 v 7

Unlikely considering placings and that 1 has the weeks break and is playing the lowest ranked side which would have had to have beaten the 2nd highest ranked side to get there but hey anything is possible.

Don't see anything particularly wrong with it from a fairness point of view, but as you originally noted it has a fatal flaw in not having enough finals games & threrfore less $$$.

At the end of the day the teams have won to get there. No second chances, All elimination.

The fatal flaw is made all the worse since the potential "gain" here that you are trying to achieve 'No second chances, All elimination' - is not worth doing.

Your system doesn't seem intrinsically any better than the current system yet it is considerably worse in terms of commercial viability.

In short, it has Buckleys chance of ever being adopted.

 

[Hit And Rum]

Originally posted by Dan26
I've been posting the exact same scenario for years on bigfooty. Why listen only when someone else proposes it?

What? Did someone say something? Only Joking!

I had not seen this and probably neither had some of the other new members hence the response.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Tommo
Having all finals as eliminations might solve the problem of Adelaide finals not being sold out. People are more likely to go to a game if they know that if there team losses they are out. They aren't going to want to miss the last game of the year.

What is this thing about the crowd at finals in Adelaide ?

It is not finals in Adelaide, it is just Port finals in Adelaide that have this problem.

This year for example the final Adelaide vs west Coast got a bigger crowd at AAMI than Essendon vs West Coast at Colonial the year before.

 

[Hit And Rum]

I agree it will never get adopted. I got to be honest even the idea of a final 7 sounds strange.

Importantly the system is sound when it comes to the fairnessfor clubs and avoiding second chances. Practically and from a revenue garnering system there is not enough games. No question there, I recognised that at the start as you mentioned as I was attempting to come up with a system that reward the best winning team and not rewarding losing teams.

Lets think of the best money making final system....

1 v 16
2 v 15
3 v 14.........

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
Importantly the system is sound when it comes to the fairness for clubs and avoiding second chances.

Agree with the first bit (that your final 7 system seems fair enough & that fairness is important), but not with the second bit - I can't see why avoiding second chances is in any way important or even necessarily desirable, and I don't believe the current system (in concept anyway) is any less fair than your final 7 - (expcept of course I note that the current system fairness is compromised by the MCG fiasco).

 

[Hit And Rum]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum

Advantage Proportional:

Team Finishing 1: 1 weeks rest, Home team for all its finals
(played at MCG so considered neutral)

Team Finishing 2: Home team for all its finals excluding Grand Final (played at MCG so considered neutral)

Teams Finishing 3 and 4: Home ground advantage for first week of finals. Away after that.

Teams finishing 5, 6 and 7: Away for all finals series.

If higher placed teams get knocked out then obviously advantage falls to them for homeground status.

I was merely attempting to create a system that does not allow double chances. The eight and its double chances and hence extra games were created to provide extra revenue. The current 8 is beter then the previous however i do not think a team that comes 4th or 3rd for that matter should get a second chance the same as the team that came 1st.

Why should a team that finishes 1st get exactly the same benefit as a team that finishes 3 places lower in 4th. Simply it shouldnt.

The team that finishes 1st should always have a greater and far more distinct advantage then all other teams in the 8, 7, 4, 13 or whatever. That is the just reward for finishing a gruelling H&A season better then everyone else.

Once in the finals and the advantage has been spread it should come down to the teams ability on the day. H&A decides finals positioning and advantage relative to that positioning. Finals show ability to prepare for a game, cope with pressue and win the big matches.

 

[themoose]

But the tradition of Australian Football is that of the second chance. In the late 1800's the minor premiers always had the right of challange, which is where the double chance evolved from in developing the Page and subsequently the McIntyre systems. Also while we have such a unfair draw where finals positions are decided by the draw the double chance at least provides a little equity in the system. Keep the Eight as is, it's been great since the change.

BTW NRL swiched to the Old AFL 8. Complaints when sides won and had harder opponents than sides that lost!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I can't see why avoiding second chances is in any way important or even necessarily desirable,

If you have ever seen a Grand Final in any league, you will know why avoiding double chances are desirable. The beauty of finals particualrly the Grand Final, is the "performing on the day" aspect. That's what finals are about.

Let's pretend there was only a four team competition, and a final-2 was used, okay?

How would that final-2 be structured? Easy. 1v2 in a one-off match. Would you or anyone have a problem with that system? Of course not. Let's anyalyse that system mathematically for a moment. Half of the teams are in the finals, and the two teams are seeded so the highest plays the lowest (obviously, because they are the only teams) and both have a mathematical probability of 50% of winning the premiership.

That is EXACTLY the same in theory as a 16 team competition, in which 8 teams make the finals, and, whereby the highest plays the lowest (eg 1v8, 2v7 etc) structured under a quarter-final, semi-final, Grand Final, format. So if you don't have a problem with the final-2 (and no one I'e spoken to does. After all it's a Grand Final), then you shouldn't have a problem with the knockout final-8 which is the same thing quadrupled.

Let's suppose the AFL decided on a 4-team finals system. Under the current final-8, the top 4 teams are all treated equally, so a four teams final system, based on the Preliminary Final weekend structure would be two games 1v4, and 2v3, indentical in structure and theory to the final-2 in a four team competition, which I'm sure no one would have a problem with.

PROVIDED the finals series concludes with a one-off knockout game (whcih is essentially a final-2), the whole finals series must follow the knockout seeding format (i.e highest vs lowest) if it is to be structured correctly.

The final-7 propsoed in this thread is the perfect way to construct a 7-team finals series. Well done to the author. The exact same principle can be used to construct a final, 2,3,4,5,6 or 8.

The final-3 would be 2v3 in a Preliminary Final with the winner meeting 1st in the Grand Final. Sounds familair right? That's because we have used that system for 70 years when we get to the 3rd week of the finals. The exact same principle should be used when we work back to 4 teams, or 5 or 6, or 7.

But when we work backwards to the first week of the finals, we destroy the perfection with this double chance monstrocity, which contradicts the perfection that exists in the last two weeks of the finals.


A knockout final-8, is exactly the same a a one-off final-2 match-up, except it is multiplyed by four.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dan26
If you have ever seen a Grand Final in any league, you will know why avoiding double chances are desirable.

Balderdash. Utter tripe.

Take Basketball.

The deciding final is a "best of three".

After the first loss even in the friggin GF series there is a double chance.

Then there is baseball, ice hockey, netball, even the one-day cricket (I think).

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Balderdash. Utter tripe.

Take Basketball.

The deciding final is a "best of three".

After the first loss even in the friggin GF there is a double chance.

This is not basketball. In football, nearlky 100% of the population will tell you they are happy with the knockout nature of the Grand Final. Tell an American to make the Superbowl best of three, and they will cut your balls off.

Not all sports do it of course. In Baseball each team plays 162 H&A games, and each match can have a flukey result (that's why they play so many matches) so a best of seven is required, at World Series time.

But the traditions of Australian Rules football since 1931 dictate that a one-off match to decide the premeirship be played. This is an exciting, and much loved way to conclude the finals series, and that "on the day" aspect has traditionally been what finals are all about. Finals are not about getting second chances - they are about performing on the day. The Superbowl is the biggest individual day in Americna sport, because it is one match. The other sports, as big as they are, have their Grand Final over a 7 game format, and whilst it is big, it lacks the romance of the Superbowl, FA Cup, or AFL Grand Final.

 

[LordLucifer]

Originally posted by Dan26

Final 5
Week 1:Quarter-Final 4th vs 5th
Week 2:Semi-Final 1st vs winner of Quarter-final, 2v3
Week 3:Grand Final winners of Semi-Finals

Final 6
Week 1:Quarter-Finals 4th vs 5th, 3rd vs 6th
Week 2:Semi-Finals 1st vs winner of 4v5, 2v winner of 3v6
Week 3:Grand Final winners of Semi-Finals

My overall preference would be for a final 4 but with 16 teams in the competition, this will never eventuate. I do like the idea of going back to a final 5 but don't like the concept of only 1 game in the first week of the finals.

Your final 6 scenario is easier to follow than mine but does have 3 less games than my option. However, anything is certainly an improvement on the current farce of a final 8. Even though your plan has 4 less games than is currently played, I'm all for it.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by TheSheik


Your final 6 scenario is easier to follow than mine but does have 3 less games than my option. However, anything is certainly an improvement on the current farce of a final 8. Even though your plan has 4 less games than is currently played, I'm all for it.

The final-6 I have shown is what the AFL currently use from the second week onwards.

In fact, they use my final-2 and final-4 in the last week, and third week of the finals, and of course the final-6 in the second week.

Following those exact same mathematical principels, we end up with the final-8 I have shown, but the AFL decide to destroy the perfection of the last three weeks of the finals, and create these "double chances" which totally destroy the concept of what finals are about, as well as destroying the perfection of the final three weeks of the finasl.

I wrote to Wayne Jackson about this two years ago, and we exchanged three letters. He eventually gave my a $30 AFL tie!

 

[LordLucifer]

Might be time to send a few letters to Demetriou then ??

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by TheSheik
Might be time to send a few letters to Demetriou then ??

Demetriou is more arrogant and less receptive to outside opinion. His opinions are the only thing that matter. I've written to Demetriou many times before, and most times he doesn't even respond.

The good thing about Jackson, was that he always took the time to respond to me. Always. A good manager will take on board others opinions, as well as backing their own judgement. Don't really like Demetriou. I hope he proves me wrong.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Dan26
This is not basketball.

This is isn't American football either.

Second chance finals have long been a part of Australian football.

I still can't see why you find that concept so repugnant.

Sure a higher finishing team may be eliminated after one loss after a lower finishing team benefits from a second chance... but this can happen only after that higher finishing team has progressed through to the latter stages of the finals.

Your alternative final-8 of straight quarter finals really doesn't provide enough incentive/reward for finishing higher. Sure home ground advantage... but is that really enough in a competition with 10 of 16 teams basically sharing the one home ground (at finals time at least), not to mention two other pairs of teams with shared home grounds as well?

 

[Hit And Rum]

That is why the 7 is great. All teams are even on the day excluding home ground adantage to the higher placed teams AND excluding the minor premier who gets a week rest.

No reward for losing finals only a reward for winning in the H & A season (weeks rest, home ground thru the finals) and a reward for winning: not getting knocked out!

 

[skipper kelly]

Why dont we have 16 team final series. over 4 weeks

1 v 16
2 v 15

etc etc etc

1st week 8 finals, 2nd 4, 3rd 2, 4th GF.

That way it would give us more games of footy and would keep all "the knockout finals only" supporters happy. Then we can all look forward to Sept and everbodys happy.

 

[Hit And Rum]

That is what I said earlier.

1 v 16
2 v 15

and so on.

Give everyone a second chance to kick it going longer and give the top eight a triple chance.....

At least the MCG agreement would be sorted in the first week!

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
That is what I said earlier.

1 v 16
2 v 15

and so on.

Give everyone a second chance to kick it going longer and give the top eight a triple chance.....

At least the MCG agreement would be sorted in the first week!

sorry mate. great minds think alike

 

[gigs]

Originally posted by no1bankteller
My only concern is that team that finishes second does not get rewarded.

second place is first place loser we dont play to be second...just ask collingwood

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DaveW


Second chance finals have long been a part of Australian football.

So, have knockout finals. Much more so.Knockout, has always defined how we view and associate finals football.

This is one of those things that doesn't have a counter argument. If the Grand Final is knockout and the Preliminary Final is knockout, and the finals three weeks of the finals conclude with the knockout syle final-2, final-4 and final-6 (in weeks, 4,3, and 2), then the whole finals series must be knockout.

It is the only correct and proper way to conduct a finals series, that ends with a knockout game (as ours presently does).

You love the knockout nature of the Grand Final. I don't need to ask. I know you like it. We all do. Me, you, everyone. That same knockout aspect should, and deserves to be appiled all the way through the finals, because that's what finals are about - performing on the day. Always has been, always will be.

 

[skipper kelly]

World Series Baseball. Best of 7

 

[Hit And Rum]

We have discussed this earlier but I can't see a best of 7 series ever happening in AFL. Firstly because it goes against every tradition in Aussie Rules Football and secondly because it could take up to 7 weeks to find out who won the GF!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by skipper kelly
World Series Baseball. Best of 7

Baseball is a sport in whcih each teams plays 162 regular season games. It is a sport in which flukey reslts tend to happen, hence the massive number of games required to give a reasonable indication of a team's quality. It is a sport where best of seven makes sense.

Aussie Rules is like Gridiron, in the sense that it is a once a week sport, not "once a day" like Baseball, and these once a week sports, tend to be the sports that conclude their season with knockout games.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Dan26
This is one of those things that doesn't have a counter argument. If the Grand Final is knockout and the Preliminary Final is knockout, and the finals three weeks of the finals conclude with the knockout syle final-2, final-4 and final-6 (in weeks, 4,3, and 2), then the whole finals series must be knockout.

It is the only correct and proper way to conduct a finals series, that ends with a knockout game (as ours presently does).

I can accept that you have an idealogical problem with a 2nd chance finals setup.

But to say finals MUST be pure knock-out and that there's "no counter argument" is just claptrap.