Final 8 set to become final 10

[Dan26]

I dont think more than half the teams should ever play finals, so I think 9 teams when 18 are playing.

Depends how you look at it.

Look at it this way:

In an 18 team comp, you have the top 9 teams and the bottom 9 teams. With a final 10, the top half all make it, and only the BEST team of the bottom 9 makes it.

If you explain it like that, is sounds more palatable doesn't it?

The NBA for many years had 16 teams making the play-offs in a 27 and 28 team comp. It ceates a lot of excitement among the lower seedings, and it never compromised the integrity of the play-offs because the best teams nearly always progressed to the championship series anyway.

And it will be the same in the AFL. If 10 teams make it, the premiership will still be won by one of the better teams. It always is. But it does allow the season to be more exciting for teams who would otherwise be out of finals action.

So, that being the case, why oppose it?

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

That's what will happen.

1-6 will have a week off. 7v10 and 8v9 in the first week, with the winners of those two games to meet 1st and 2nd in the quarter-finals in week 2. The other quarter finals in the second week are 3v6 and 4v5. Then the winners progress to the Preliminary Final and Grand Final.

No doubt that will happen.

Close but I dont think that is fair. There is no more benefit finishing 1st than there is 4th aside from playing a slightly weaker team, 1-4 must have a double chance, otherwise what is the point in making it?

Pessimistic and Big Al had the right idea.

The system we have right now is very fair, each position as you move up is rewarded slightly more.

1-6 could feasably have a week off, but after the 'wild card' week, the remaining 8 I think should have a finals series exactly like we have now.

5 weeks. Simple. More games too which is why the AFL will go for it.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

The problem with the final 8 system in an 18 club AFL competition is that half way through the season there will be many clubs in limbo, and disinterested, with nothing to play for, knowing that they can't make the finals. Perhaps there should be some kind of relegation like the EPL so that bottom clubs would still be fighting hard instead of tanking, or perhaps the bottom four clubs automatically gets 4 points deduct at the start of the next season or something similar.

Nail on head.

But there is no need to have relegation or penalties, just have a final 10!!! It makes sense!

All this talk about finals being ruined by crap teams playing in them is bullshit, a final is a final, you dont watch it for the skill, you watch it for the intensity. Teams go up a notch no matter how good they are.

 

[Mr Crow!]

Final 10 - bloody ridiculous!

Why have more than half the competition in the finals, and reward teams with a losing record???

 

[Dan26]

Close but I dont think that is fair. There is no more benefit finishing 1st than there is 4th aside from playing a slightly weaker team, 1-4 must have a double chance, otherwise what is the point in making it?

Don't get me started on double chances. I HATE double chances as everyone around here knows.

Finals are NOT about getting second chances. They are about performing on the day.

The NFL system is pure knockout. The top seeded teams have advantages in other ways. i.e they have 1.) home ground advantage, 2.) they have a week off in week one, and 3.) they have the advantage of playing lower seeded opponents.

That's three big advantages they play for during the home and away season..

Under the knockout final 10, 1st and 2nd would get to play the winners of 7v10 and 8v9. And whilst 3,4,5,6 technically have the same mathematical advantage as 1st and 2nd the reality is 1st and 2nd are better off.

1st and 2nd:
- get a week off and get to play a team who had to play the week before
- get the advantage play a lower seeded team who they should defeat
- get home ground advantage

3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
- get a week off, but, they all play each other (3v6, 4v5), so they don't have the advantage that 1st and 2nd do of playing a battle weary team who played the week before

A final-10 is a perfect opportunity to get rid of double chances once and for all, yet still stay at the current "9 finals over 4 weeks"

Don't fall for the trap of thinking double chances are "good." They are shit. They totally go against the "on the day" principle which we all know finals are about. We love the Preliminary final and Grand Final because of the drama of the season being on the line.

People love knockout football. Give them what they want. YOU love knockout finals football. I know you love knockout finals and I don'y even know who you are, because all fans love knockout finals. Knockout is what finals are about.

You don't need double chances to give suitable advantages to the top teams. There are other ways to give them advantages, like the NFL system does.

 

[petermc]

we all sit here pontificating about top 2,3,4,5,... whereas the truth of the matter is we should go for a top one and season over ...except we like finals so it doesn't matter how many teams we have. The truth is we start a new knockout competition which decides the "premier" . I love it you love but we all know that it may not decide the years best team.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Mate dont turn this into a clone of your other thread. You were outnumbered 100-1 in that because of your daft ideas. What is this obsession with copying the American model???

I personally think their system is flawed, a team that dominates all year can go out with 1 loss, it completely nullifies the importance of a strong regular season.

Why copy them?? Our system is better!

Dont get me started on the conference suggestions.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

we all sit here pontificating about top 2,3,4,5,... whereas the truth of the matter is we should go for a top one and season over ...except we like finals so it doesn't matter how many teams we have. The truth is we start a new knockout competition which decides the "premier" . I love it you love but we all know that it may not decide the years best team.

The finals are a month (or 5 weeks) where the level of intensity is raised. Its a whole new ball game. The team who comes out of that deserves the flag. Which is why Brisbane were so good, they turned it on in September.

But then again, Im a Hawthorn supporter, I've been saying this for 18 months.

 

[Dan26]

we all sit here pontificating about top 2,3,4,5,... whereas the truth of the matter is we should go for a top one and season over ...except we like finals so it doesn't matter how many teams we have. The truth is we start a new knockout competition which decides the "premier" . I love it you love but we all know that it may not decide the years best team.

The irony of course is that if we had a "top of the ladder wins the premiership" system, then the finals series WOULD still exist. It would just be a 22-week 176 game finals series.

You see, I would define finals as matches which have a DIRECT effect on you winning the premiership.

The current home and away series is not a direct effect. It is just a qualifying procedure. The matches that have a direct effect on the premiership are the nine finals games.

In a "top team wins the premiership" system, there is no "qualifying procedure" as such. All 176 home and away games have a direct effect on winning the premiership. It is, in essence a 22 week 176 game finals series, featuring every team.

It's always been the world's best way of deciding the premier team. You finish best after 6 months of consistent success, you deserve it. What better finals procedure is there than one that goes for the whole season where every match is a final?

 

[Dan26]

Mate dont turn this into a clone of your other thread. You were outnumbered 100-1 in that because of your daft ideas. What is this obsession with copying the American model???

Daft ideas? LOL!!!!

So, a finals series being knockout is some radical "way out there" idea is it? Get in the real world. It's the way finals should be. It's got nothing to do with being American. The VFL had a knockout final-4 back in 1901! Our own current final-8 is essentially a knockout system at it's core. Look what happened to St.Kilda after one loss last year.

I personally think their system is flawed, a team that dominates all year can go out with 1 loss, it completely nullifies the importance of a strong regular season.

Well, you must hate the current finals system.

St.Kilda went out after one loss in 2009 and 1997 after finishing top

Geelong went out after one loss in 2008 after finishing top

Essendon went out after one loss in 1999 and 2001 after finishing top

Kangaroos went out after one loss in 1998 after finishing top.


And it's GOOD that the above all happened because finals are about performing ON THE DAY. If you like double chances so much, you must hate the current final-8, because it allows all of the above to happen.

The only finals system you would like would be the old Argus system (1898-1930).

In the Argus system the top team got a double chance all the way through the finals, not just in the first week. It was a true double chance. If they lost the Grand Final, they would get a second chance in another Grand Final.

That's the only way to use a double chance. Either have it for the top team all the way through the finals, or not at all.

I think we both agree, "not at all" is preferable.


You've got to understand that you do not need a double chance to have an advantage.

Isn't A.) getting home ground advantage, B.) playing the lowest seed and C.) having a week off, enough of an advanatge to strive for?

Not having a double chance does not nullify the importance of a strong regular season. It certainly didn't nullify it for the New Orleans Saints. There are plenty of other ways to give the top teams advantages worth striving for.

A double chance is NOT one of those things. Why? Because finals are about performing on the day. I don't see how the logical point can be even remotely argued. Finals are about performing on the day. I can't stress it enough.

Say it again, and again, and it will get through at some point: Finals are about performing on the day.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Look, I'm done arguing with you man. There was 13 pages of people trying to argue with you in your other thread and you're obviously set in your opinion and unable to concede an inch.

You know exactly what i meant by going out with 1 loss, but you've got a track record of twisting arguments and selecting history to back up your ideas so I'll let it go. I see no reason for you to suddenly change and I dont feel like banging my head against a brick wall.

I just pray you have no real clout so your fanciful ideas stay as they are, an opinion on an online forum, which you are entitled to.

 

[Nardz]

Ninthmond is now a complement...

eleventhmond just doesn't have the same ring to it!

(i'm sure this has probably already been posted - but i couldnt be bothered going through 60+ posts

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

eleventhmond just doesn't have the same ring to it!

(i'm sure this has probably already been posted - but i couldnt be bothered going through 60+ posts

With a gem like that I'm not suprised you were eager to get it out...

 

[Alberton_Magpie]

The NFL only rewards 12 teams out of 32 with playoffs

I think with 18 teams the AFL should do a final 6.

 

[Nardz]

With a gem like that I'm not suprised you were eager to get it out...

im not sure if you're being sarcastic

 

[Nardz]

The NFL only rewards 12 teams out of 32 with playoffs

I think with 18 teams the AFL should do a final 6.

agreed. in the end of the day how often does a team outside the top 6 actually mount a decent challenge?

 

[kranky al]

agreed. in the end of the day how often does a team outside the top 6 actually mount a decent challenge?

i was thinking this - one of my mates challenged me to then come up with a fair finals system and i couldnt - then again im not the sharpest tool in iraq

so maybe you will do better - how do you do a fair finals system with 6

 

[Macca18]

Absolute rubbish idea.

Why can't they just LEAVE things alone? Why do they always need to have change? They have a great product as it is that continues to prosper, leave it alone.

 

[blues2010]

Richmond celebrations in full swing.

I don't think so. Just means they will finish 11th instead of 9th from now on.
Although eleventhmond doesn't have the same ring as ninthmond

 

[Nardz]

They have a great product as it is

dubious.

they HAD a great product - IMO they've already gone a long way towards ruining it.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Why wouldn't you have 8/18 in the finals?

Sounds perfectly fine to me.

10/18 is just ridiculous.

 

[Nardz]

I don't think so. Just means they will finish 11th instead of 9th from now on.
Although eleventhmond doesn't have the same ring as ninthmond

sorry mate - beat u to it.
post #64

 

[malpaso]

It's a business people, the more teams in the finals the more tickets are sold and the more members stay interested in watching AFL on TV and in the stadiums. Pure and Simple.

Second Chances SUCK. If a team isn't ready to play come finals time then they don't belong there..

Top 10, give the top 2 the week off, teams 3-10 play knockout and then every round is knockout from there on in.

Makes for great drama and heightened intensity on the park.

 

[wolvesjr34]

sorry mate - beat u to it.
post #64

Hate to burst your bubble, but I just read this thread through... and you were the johnny come lately. Someone else already posted it lol

 

[kickingoals]

The problem the AFL will have is expanding the competition means more games , more wins , more losses , untill they tell us how long the season will be / how many games played how can they determine a finals system ?
The final 8 has worked well enough over past decade with spots 7 & 8 usually filled by a team winning 12 loosing 10 , exception essendon last year making 8th with loosing record (10wins 11 losses 1 draw)
I personally would hate too see teams rewarded with a finals game year after year with a loosing record over the season .