Final 9

[DaVe86]

We should be reducing the amount of finallist's, not increasing.


This year, 1st place is no advantage, but this is the first time in a while.

I doubt there will be too many years in the next decade where 1 interstate team does not make the top 4.

But Sydney is in 4th spot and are going to be very hard to topple. So therefore 1st place is a huge advantage because playing at the G is stacks better than the SCG.

 

[Otiman]

No.

I'd go so far to abolish the 8 and drop it down to a final 6.

Hell, have a final 16, and leech more money out of fans.

 

[Nasma]

This year, 1st place is no advantage, but this is the first time in a while.

Last year Geelong vs Kangas QF, no advantage there. Also, let's not assume Collingwood are finishing 4th just yet...

 

[JHF1870]

While we're at it why not just have a top 8 finals and a bottom 8 finals.

 

[T-Pain]

in 2012 there will be an 18 team competition so a top 9 seems fair. also gives the opportunity for a system where finishing top gets you more of an advantage and reward.

as it stands, teams generally make the decision to "prepare for next year" (tank) in round 5/6 or 7, depending on how far behind the win-loss count they are.

anyone who argues for less than an 8 team finals series will just ensure more "preparing for the next season" by "playing the kids" because teams could be 0-3, 3 games off top 5 or top 6 pace, and will already be needing a miracle to make it.

 

[toorakbum]

unfortunately only leaves 7 finals and also means teams get eliminated from the title race earlier which means less interest in the finals rounds of the home and away series.

That's true but I think it makes getting a finals spot much more coveted, and assures the best teams are playing in september. Look at baseball in the states, only the best 8 teams out of 30 make it to the playoffs.

 

[Guus_Hiddink]

Fail

 

[FootyJunkie]

You don't deserve a crack at a flag from NINTH. You don't deserve a crack at it from seventh, for God's sakes. One day the final eight is going to turn around and bite the AFL in the ars and the eighth-placed Brisbanesque middle-ground mediocrity side is going to have a charmed run and win a flag that it doesn't deserve.

9th would have to beat 2nd, then 1st, then one of 3rd, 4th, 7th, or 8th before making the Grand Final. A snowball's chance in hell, but a chance.

 

[m0nty]

How about a modified week 1 like this:

1st: Gets a TWO-week pass to host PF in week 3
2 v 3: Winner gets a week off to host PF, loser hosts QF in week 2
4 v 9, 5 v 8, 6 v 7: Winners go to QFs in week 2, losers are out... highest-finishing winner hosts QF, other two allocated by seedings

Week 2 onwards as now.

The only differences from now are:
- 4th doesn't get a double chance, but then again they do get to host a game against 9th (which they should win) instead of playing away against 1st (which they currently lose)
- 1st gets a two-week holiday - this could be a double-edged sword though!

 

[FootyJunkie]

1st gets a two-week holiday - this could be a double-edged sword though!

See Essendon 1990

 

[mcgarnacle]

That's true but I think it makes getting a finals spot much more coveted, and assures the best teams are playing in september. Look at baseball in the states, only the best 8 teams out of 30 make it to the playoffs.

or the NFL where 12 of 32 advance to the post-season.

and they have a pure playoff system too...........not this double chance bullshit.

its obvious that the finals systems deployed in australian sport are a grab for extra $$$. In both of the AFL and NRL, there is at least 1 week of each series which is pointless - wk 1 in the AFL, and both Wk 1 & wk 2 in the NRL.

 

[FootyJunkie]

How about a modified week 1 like this:

1st: Gets a TWO-week pass to host PF in week 3
2 v 3: Winner gets a week off to host PF, loser hosts QF in week 2
4 v 9, 5 v 8, 6 v 7: Winners go to QFs in week 2, losers are out... highest-finishing winner hosts QF, other two allocated by seedings

Week 2 onwards as now.

The only differences from now are:
- 4th doesn't get a double chance, but then again they do get to host a game against 9th (which they should win) instead of playing away against 1st (which they currently lose)
- 1st gets a two-week holiday - this could be a double-edged sword though!

1st doesn't get a double chance but 2nd and 3rd below them do.

 

[m0nty]

1st doesn't get a double chance but 2nd and 3rd below them do.

Yes, but 1st only have to win two games, whereas 2nd and 3rd have to win three.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

8 from 16 is too many. 9 from 18 is too many.
At 18 teams there really is still no reason, other than money, to go beyond a final five. Maybe six, but the final six was the worst system yet.

Finals are for the elite. Simply making top half doesn't make you elite, it makes you mid-table. There's no way the AFL will decrease the number who qualify, but they really should not be considering increasing it either.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Yes, but 1st only have to win two games, whereas 2nd and 3rd have to win three.

I have to say though, at first I was a bit critical of your system, but now that I think about it, despite it not being perfect, it isn't that bad. Probably the closest system the AFL would even consider if they were to go to a Final 9. Your system has no dead rubbers, lasts 4 weeks, and guarantees the same number of finals we have now, 9 finals. A Final 9 would generate more interest in the latter stages of the Home and Away Season with one more spot up for grabs, plus gives 1st a distinct advantage over 2nd and 3rd who themselves have an advantage over the other 6 clubs. In, the current system, 1st-4th are all on the same level if we assume they are all Victorian clubs. 1st isn't properly rewarded.

The new monkey wrench in all of this is the 3 weeks between the Round 22 game and the Preliminary Final for the Minor Premier, which would certainly test their discipline. For a Minor Premier, they should be able to handle it well, despite their being a history otherwise (Essendon 1990).

Atleast this system is somewhat realistic of happening compared to a Final 12 that Choco suggested which is ridiculous.

 

[m0nty]

Thanks mate. Yeah, I think that the only thing that sticks out in it is that two-week bye for 1st, it's weird in the AFL context. It would help maintain interest by the top teams right up to the end of the season though, you wouldn't get the leader shutting up shop and resting players late in the season if there was a chance of them getting caught.

 

[Duffman95]

8 from 16 is too many. 9 from 18 is too many.
At 18 teams there really is still no reason, other than money, to go beyond a final five. Maybe six, but the final six was the worst system yet.

Finals are for the elite. Simply making top half doesn't make you elite, it makes you mid-table. There's no way the AFL will decrease the number who qualify, but they really should not be considering increasing it either.

I tend to agree. However 8/18 making the finals is, realistically, the closest we are going to get to an elite finals series.

 

[PHX]

Heaven.

 

[Arecsa]

8 from 16 is too many. 9 from 18 is too many.
At 18 teams there really is still no reason, other than money, to go beyond a final five. Maybe six, but the final six was the worst system yet.

Finals are for the elite. Simply making top half doesn't make you elite, it makes you mid-table. There's no way the AFL will decrease the number who qualify, but they really should not be considering increasing it either.

Completely agree. Half the competition getting to play finals is just crap. I'd like a final 6 from the current 16 teams we have, but it's too ugly to work well.

When we get 18 teams playing in the next few years I hope we don't get more finals added by Andrew "Dollars" Demetriou, just keep it as a top 8.