Has Competitive Equalisation created a need for wild-card finals?

[janty]

Next year the Suns and Fremantle will finish 9th and 10th and no one will bring up the wildcard round idea.

 

[Dan26]

A problem they created and a solution to their problem

Or you know remove the first change, have no pre finals bye, but (due to concussion protocols ) insert the bye to pre GF and on that weekend you have brownlow and lower league grand finals

If you use the knockout final-10, you get both.

The top-6 have the week off in the first week of the finals, so they get the 14-day preparation for their first final, and you can have the bye before the Grand Final, because the finals series is condensed one week, so this can be implemented without extending the finals series longer than 5 weeks.

 

[Blackhawk42]

This rationale doesn't make sense.

Fremantle finished 12-10-1, Hawthorn finished 14-9.

Suppose Fremantle were 8-10-1 and then won their last 4 games to get to 12-10-1? And suppose Hawthorn started the season 14-4, and then lost their last 5 games to finish 14-9?

Under whatever system you use, if you finish in the required position on the ladder you deserve to make it, because the same rules apply to everyone. Recent form has nothing to do with it.

You also talk about how an incredible Sunday proved it's a bad idea.

Had a final-10 been in place, the Melbourne-Collingwood match would have been a match to determine who finished 10th. Essentially an elimination Final. It would have drawn 85,000 instead of the dead-rubber 50,000 that it drew. There is your economic benefit right there.

That would have been pretty incredible. Consider how huge that match would have been.

This would have been the ladder going into the final round. I've given Collingwood 12 wins not 11 because two draws is the same as 12 wins 10 losses from 22 games. Consider the battle to finish in the top-6 also.

1.SYDNEY 16-6
2. PORT AD-15-7
3. GWS 15-7
4. GEELONG 14-8
5. BRISBANE 13-1-8
6. BULLDOGS 13-9
7. Hawthorn 13-9
8. Carlton 13-9
9.Fremantle 12-9-1
10.Collingwood 12-10.....100.1%
11. Essendon 11-10-1
12. Melbourne 11-11..........101.1%

Could have potentially got 90,000 on Friday night.

Fremantle, Carlton and Hawthorn would have all all still had possibilities of making the top-6. Essendon could still have made it if Melbourne beat Collingwood and the Bombers beat Brisbane.

It makes perfect sense.

With all due respect, all you've done is flip the scenario to suit your narrative.

I'm dealing with the literal outcome of this season.

After 24 rounds, we have our top 8.
The only reason you'd extend it if you're the AFL is make more revenue. That isn't a genuine reason when considering the integrity of the season IMO.

 

[Dan26]

It makes perfect sense.

With all due respect, all you've done is flip the scenario to suit your narrative.

I'm dealing with the literal outcome of this season.

After 24 rounds, we have our top 8.
The only reason you'd extend it if you're the AFL is make more revenue. That isn't a genuine reason when considering the integrity of the season IMO.

You said this: "why should Fremantle, fresh off 4 consecutive losses, get another chance (hypothetically) against Hawthorn, coming off 14 wins from 18 games? The form line is already there."

The point I'm making is that your rationale is totally flawed. You can have whatever opinion about the final-8 you want, but to say we shouldn't go to 10 "because" Freo lost their last 4 games is flawed. There have been dozens of examples of teams winning 12 matches and finishing with a string of 3 or 4 wins. The form of the teams isn't the issue. If you win enough games under the system being used at the time (whether it is 8 teams or 10) and you know the rules going into the season, then you deserve to make it.

I don't think it's just revenue that would make the AFL expand it either although obviously that is important. The Melbourne-Collingwood game in round 24 would have been a massive match to secure 10th spot and would have drawn 85,000 instead of 50,000, so there is a justifiable economic benefit right there. But in reality, it is more to do with the expansion of the competition. We used to have a final-5, then 6 and as the competition expanded to 16 teams, that became 8. We will soon move to 19 teams, so blind Freddy could tell you that in a 19-team league will have a 10-team finals series.

And that is really the crux of the issue. We are going to surely and obviously move to 10 in a 19-team league. My gripe is that the proposed wildcard final-10 is stupid, too convoluted and too long. What I want - assuming we move to 10 by 2028 - is a knockout final-10, which I have proposed in detail numerous times.

I'd like the discussion to move way from whether it should be 8 or 10 (because it WILL be 10 by 2028), and instead focus on which type of final-10 do you use - that's the more interesting discussion.

There are two different knockout final-10's that can be used.

 

[Clark G]

Not saying it should happen, but if the bye week was moved to between the preliminary finals and grand final, should the preliminary finals be played across Saturday and Sunday, rather than the current Friday and Saturday set up?

 

[demondavey]

If we go to 10. I'd want whoever finishes 1 and 2 get first week off.

Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk

How would that work?