The advantage is greatly reduced since the prefinals bye
Has Competitive Equalisation created a need for wild-card finals?
- Thread starter justlookingaround
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Still 3x the probability of winning from 4th than 5th, plus a guaranteed home SF or PF.
Wildcard finals this week would be rubbish - it would be a massive anticlimax and dramatically reduce the chances of 7/8 making a GF.
Would it actually be an anticlimax? Both Carlton and Collingwood would be guaranteed to be competing in the hypothetical wildcard playoff if it was in place this year (Essendon were a chance to make it as well). Instead, we're in a situation where Carlton, Collingwood (and Essendon) could very well all miss out on the post home and away season competition.
Purely from an engagement + tv ratings perspective, you'd have to say the AFL would be better off having Carlton, Collingwood (and possibly Essendon) competing in the post home and away season competition. Could you imagine the hype / ratings if we had 8th placed Carlton playing 9th placed Collingwood in a wildcard playoff at the MCG next week?
Where does it end? What not four wildcard games? If 10th deserve a crack, why not 12th?
Just schedule an exhibition game between the two best non qualifying big 4 teams to satisfy vic tv.
Then let the adults get on with the final series
Then let the adults get on with the final series
Which just means eight is too many.
Colonial
Premium Gold
- Apr 12, 2012
- 48,178
- 45,399
- AFL Club
- GWS
No.
I know why it was brought up this year by the media but it won’t do anything for the comp.
I know why it was brought up this year by the media but it won’t do anything for the comp.
I think a finals restructure is worth discussing given we know the league is going to expand to 19 teams in the near future. Did people have an issue with the finals system expanding to top 8 when it was a 15 team league in 1994? Collingwood squeezed into 8th that year and I bet the AFL wasn't mad about the coverage + ratings they would've received by having the Pies participating in September that year.
I'm really surprised so many people are against introducing more marquee games in any given season. I understand people have concerns about the quality of teams in the bottom 10, but I think you'd find in most years that the teams that finish 9th and 10th would be competitive enough with teams ranked 7th and 8th in order for those games to be interesting.
We will be going to 24 games when Tassie come in. Another round is much better than wildcard matches.
So you'd rather have a week that potentially has as many as nine uncompetitive matches instead of a wildcard weekend involving teams ranked near each other on the ladder? Where does it end? Why not 30 home and away games?
Wildcard is only needed because of the extra games we play above playing every team once.
Given how tight the ladder is, which teams you play twice make an absolute difference to finishing top 4 or 10th-12th.
That's why the fixture needs to be changed. But adding wildcard round is just putting a bandaid on rather fixing the problem.
Whether that's play every team once (17 games), 6-6-6 (17+5 games) or play every team twice (34 games), something proper needs to be done.
6-6-6 only works if once you've qualified for top/middle/bottom 6, you can't leave those rankings (it's not fair that the 7th placed team could get a roll on against 8th-12th and finish top 4). It's not ideal, but a compromise that fits within the current framework of ~23 H+A games.
17 games will never get up, purely from a TV broadcast/money perspective.
34 games would require an overhaul of the AFL system. Larger lists, forced byes for players (but no byes for clubs), probably only a top 4 finals series, AFL reserves etc.
Given how tight the ladder is, which teams you play twice make an absolute difference to finishing top 4 or 10th-12th.
That's why the fixture needs to be changed. But adding wildcard round is just putting a bandaid on rather fixing the problem.
Whether that's play every team once (17 games), 6-6-6 (17+5 games) or play every team twice (34 games), something proper needs to be done.
6-6-6 only works if once you've qualified for top/middle/bottom 6, you can't leave those rankings (it's not fair that the 7th placed team could get a roll on against 8th-12th and finish top 4). It's not ideal, but a compromise that fits within the current framework of ~23 H+A games.
17 games will never get up, purely from a TV broadcast/money perspective.
34 games would require an overhaul of the AFL system. Larger lists, forced byes for players (but no byes for clubs), probably only a top 4 finals series, AFL reserves etc.
Why would there be nine uncompetitive games? This final weekend is great. There are better easy to restructure the fixture than four middle ranked teams having a weekend to themselves as some kind of special event.
It ends at 24, because you can’t play 23 with 19 teams, and we won’t go back to 22 due to Gather Round.
But the top team is treated equally with the fourth placed team (slight advantage with a home final, but that advantage disappears when both teams are from the same state). The second placed team also gets an easier PF than the top team in most years. The incentives are to finish in the top 4, but there is little benefit to put in the extra effort to finishing higher within the top 4.
A good system should distribute the advantages incrementally by ladder position, which is exactly what the knockout final 10 does.
Incidentally, 8/15 is 53.3% of teams, whereas 10/19 is 52.6% of teams.
Unclear where it will end up this year, but Carlton vs Collingwood wildcard would generate huge interest. Hawthorn vs Fremantle would also have potential to be a good game. And when you consider the alternative is a bye week with no footy, it's a no-brainer for me.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 12,986
- 10,474
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Title is ‘competitive equalisation’ but the discussion seems to now be ‘getting high drawing teams an extra week of footy’
Just remove the bye week if no footy is the issue. Went 100 years without
Also if 9th and 10th have been crueled busy the fixture, this wildcard idea still has them playing at the home grounds of 8th and 7th. Half a solution brought about by a knee jerk reaction to one team resting its team once in living memeory
Last edited:
I disagree. Eight is only vaguely acceptable because of fixture inequity. Even with that, its more than there should be if [putting sport ahead of money (which we all know the AFL never does). It certainly doesn't justify having more.
A half decent final six would be more than adequate from a sporting viewpoint. If you don't finish in the top few, you should get no chance of a crack at a flag. It was the crappiness of the final six, and lure of dollars, in use that saw eight moved to highly prematurely. (And initially a pretty bad top eight system as well.)
So, if this went ahead, this Friday night would 7 v 10 (Haw v Freo) and Sat night would be 8 v 9 (Coll v Carlton)
yeh nah
yeh nah
- May 3, 2007
- 39,446
- 23,051
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
I agree. The AFL would do it for financial reasons or for money.
They would love To have a Collingwood or Essendon or Carlton or Richmond to finish 9th or 10th. That MCG tenant some how playing 4 games in a row at the MCG before the grand final means more money for the AFL.
Wouldn't people rather have those two games this weekend than nothing?
Probably. But thats the wrong comparison as there shouldnt be nothing this weekend. It should be week 1 of finals.
The bye needs to move to before the GF like 2021
It's not competitive equalisation that's created a need for wild-card finals.
It's the uneven fixture.
Imagine being Team A sitting in 8th position, after playing Richmond, West Coast and Kangaroos twice, and Team B sitting in 9th position playing Sydney, Port and Geelong twice.
We are rewarding imposter teams with the lopsided fixture and the wildcard round may at least mean that the better team gets in (at the very least, based on form).
I would however add an extra safety in place, and that is that the wildcard round is treated as an extra fixture for the 4 teams involved. ie. if you are in 9th position and sitting 8 points adrift of 8th place, then we don't play wildcard week that season. If you are in 9th position and 4 points behind, and end up winning, we still use % to decide who goes through.
This ensures that the 24 rounds prior isn't a wasted effort and we aren't rewarding a team that was miles off it.
It's more complicated than a straight Wildcard round, but you'd hate to be the team sitting 12 points clear in 8th and get knocked out in the last week.
It's the uneven fixture.
Imagine being Team A sitting in 8th position, after playing Richmond, West Coast and Kangaroos twice, and Team B sitting in 9th position playing Sydney, Port and Geelong twice.
We are rewarding imposter teams with the lopsided fixture and the wildcard round may at least mean that the better team gets in (at the very least, based on form).
I would however add an extra safety in place, and that is that the wildcard round is treated as an extra fixture for the 4 teams involved. ie. if you are in 9th position and sitting 8 points adrift of 8th place, then we don't play wildcard week that season. If you are in 9th position and 4 points behind, and end up winning, we still use % to decide who goes through.
This ensures that the 24 rounds prior isn't a wasted effort and we aren't rewarding a team that was miles off it.
It's more complicated than a straight Wildcard round, but you'd hate to be the team sitting 12 points clear in 8th and get knocked out in the last week.
