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

[Freomaniac]

Just do it like the NBA on the bye weekend. 7th v 10th and 8th v 9th

I like it.

I do casually follow the NBA.

Funny thing is the 1999 New York Knicks made the NBA finals from the 8 th seed, which is impressive. That's like the 8th side in the AFL make finals and win 3 away finals in a row to make the grand final.

I don't mind a 7th vs 10th and 8th vs 9th.

I would be in the minority about this.

Here is the main reason why I want it.

In the AFL , if your side is 11th or 12th with 3 games to go and you know your side is not gonna make finals, why bother winning the last 3 games to finish 9th or 10th? You might as well tank the season.

If there are play off games, then there's incentives.

 

[AndyD]

It's a much different environment now. Television rights are measured in the billions of dollars, and the AFL is now just as much an entertainment product as it is a sporting product. Decades ago, the entertainment aspect of the business was nowhere near as important.

The NBA has 20 out of 30 teams make the playoffs (if you count that play-in thing), the NFL has 14 out of 32.

There is nothing wrong with half, or in the case of 10 teams in the AFL, one more than half.

If it is to be 8 or 10, and both are "one" removed from the ideal number of 9 (which would be 50%) then surely you round up.

You can't say 10 is too many, because it's no more too many than 8 is too few. It's one removed form "9" just like eight teams is.

So if the choice is rounding up to 10 or down to 8, surely you round up given the entertainment product (and minimizing dead rubbers) is so important,

You were so close to getting it but then completely missed the point. Out of the 2 competitions you referenced, which one generates more revenue from their TV deal, the one with 2/3rds of the league in the playoffs or the one with under 50%? I would hope the AFL learns it lessons from the latter instead of the former.

You inherently dilute the importance both of your H&A season by reducing the importance of finishing higher than they used to, as well as the finals by adding more games of lesser importance. That will be become more pronounced if the winners of the 7-10 and 8-9 games regularly fail to progress past the 2nd round, which is the most likely outcome in any given year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Walshawk]

The wild card finals will dramatically reduce the chances of 7th or 8th making a prelim let along winning it. No week off, then winning five finals in a row when top 4 only has to win three? Going to create some low sided/blowout finals.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

There’s nothing “wildcard” about the proposal. It’s just an extension from a Final 8 to a Final 10.

 

[Billy ray]

has anyone illustrated a two parallel mcintyre final 5 (for a top 8) with cross over at some stage

no pre-finals bye and in week 1 top 2 have off and other 8 play the 2 elims and 2 qualifying
then the second week is 1st and 2nd semi
then 3rd week is the 2 prelims and prob crossover
4th week is GF?

if i had time i would do it
i assume it would either odds and evens or better, 1, 4,5,8,9 on one side and 2,3,6,7,10 on the other

 

[justlookingaround]

There’s nothing “wildcard” about the proposal. It’s just an extension from a Final 8 to a Final 10.

Wildcard can mean different things to different leagues.
The argument would be that the top 6 directly qualifies for finals and 7/8/9/10 are wildcard placings that have to win a game to earn their spot.
Semantically it could be treated as a final 10, but again it's just semantics - it could also be called a play-in game.

Personally I think right now there are way more negatives to implementing this system than there are positives - however I also think it's inevitable we will see something like it in the next 10 years or so.

 

[Billy ray]

Top 6 locked in
Next best 4 teams based on percentage play wildcard

 

[Clark G]

Top 6 locked in
Next best 4 teams based on percentage play wildcard

So if 7th has a lower percentage than 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th, you’re saying 7th misses out and the four teams lower than them play finals?

 

[revo333]

I won't mind it once they got more teams but it should never happen while there are 18 teams.

 

[Billy ray]

So if 7th has a lower percentage than 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th, you’re saying 7th misses out and the four teams lower than them play finals?

Yes. Percentage is the wildcard.
Incentivises teams to not get blown out and also for teams to try blow out.

Otherwise dont call it wildcard. Call it final 10.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yes, there should be a final-10, and there are many good reasons why a final-10 is superior to a final-8 in an 18-team league, but the most logical reason is as follows:

Most would agree that in the 16-team league, 8 teams making the finals (50%) was perfect, right?

So, in an 18-team league, theoretically 9 would be perfect because that is 50%, right? I'm not saying we go to 9, because logistically a final-9 is difficult, but in a pure mathematical sense, 9 out of 18 (50%) is ideal, right?

So, if 9 out of 18 is mathematically perfect (but logistically impossible) that means we do either 8 or 10.

8 is one removed from the ideal number number of 9.
10 is also one removed from the ideal number of 9.

Both are "wrong" by 1, if you look at it that way. Neither is more incorrect than the other. So if 8 is one less than the ideal, and 10 is one more than the ideal, why wouldn't you go to 10??

For starters, weren't you always taught at school to round UP to the nearest whole number not round down?

And secondly the AFL isn't just in the sporting business - they are in the entertainment business, and a final-10 would reduce the amount of dead rubbers which is important in the entertainment industry. This is really the key point. If both 8 and 10 are "wrong" by 1, and neither is better or worse than the other, why wouldn't you err on the side of rounding UP given the entertainment product is just as important as the sporting product? There is no logic in rounding down. None.

Rounding down is more in keeping with afl finals tradition
It was 4 from 8 sides in early (pre Richmond ) days
Kept as 4 even with 12 sides until 1972
Then 5 from 12 which became 6 from 15 (I may be a little off me recall of when the final 6 started) then 8 from 16 which is now 8 from 18

If we go to final 10 I’d prefer the 2 final 5 model (no pre finals bye apart from top 2 giving a 13 game finals.

Though I see you would not like it as more teams get double chances…

 

[peetoo]

Vfl ladder, wher wildcard will be played this season says on afl.com.au

Top 10 play finals

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Keep it top eight ffs

 

[Rich01]

Keep it top eight ffs

Yep.
Gold Coast, Melbourne and Essendon brain farted their way out of a spot in the finals yesterday.

There is no need to dilute the finals even further by having sides like these in it that not only have no chance of getting to the last week of Sept, but don’t deserve to be there.

 

[Dan26]

Rounding down is more in keeping with afl finals tradition
It was 4 from 8 sides in early (pre Richmond ) days
Kept as 4 even with 12 sides until 1972
Then 5 from 12 which became 6 from 15 (I may be a little off me recall of when the final 6 started) then 8 from 16 which is now 8 from 18

If we go to final 10 I’d prefer the 2 final 5 model (no pre finals bye apart from top 2 giving a 13 game finals.

Though I see you would not like it as more teams get double chances…

There is a big difference though. Nowadays, the AFL is just as much a part of the entertainment industry as they are part of the sporting industry. This wasn't always the case. Minimizing some dead rubbers towards the end of the season and increasing fan engagement is really the clincher when deciding whether to go from 8 to 10.

And like I said earlier, remember that 9 teams - in theory - is the right number as it is 50%.

8 is one less than the 50 percent ideal, and 10 is one more. So both 8 and 10 are no better or worse than each other, so the argument that 10 is too many doesn't make sense, because by the same token 8 must therefore be too few.

So if it's either 8 or 10 and both are as good and bad as each other, surely go to 10.

Bu for the love of God, MAKE IT KNOCKOUT!

 

[Crankyhawk]

There is a big difference though. Nowadays, the AFL is just as much a part of the entertainment industry as they are part of the sporting industry. This wasn't always the case. Minimizing some dead rubbers towards the end of the season and increasing fan engagement is really the clincher when deciding whether to go from 8 to 10.

And like I said earlier, remember that 9 teams - in theory - is the right number as it is 50%.

8 is one less than the 50 percent ideal, and 10 is one more. So both 8 and 10 are no better or worse than each other, so the argument that 10 is too many doesn't make sense, because by the same token 8 must therefore be too few.

So if it's either 8 or 10 and both are as good and bad as each other, surely go to 10.

Bu for the love of God, MAKE IT KNOCKOUT!

Knockout will never happen. Devalues the worth of the season

 

[Dan26]

Knockout will never happen. Devalues the worth of the season

Garbage. Absolute unmitigated garbage. The fact that a Grand Final exists (and knockout Preliminary Finals) makes this comment absolute rubbish of the highest order. It's like saying the Superbowl (and the playoffs that preceded it) devalues the worth of the NFL season. Total crap.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Garbage. Absolute unmitigated garbage. The fact that a Grand Final exists (and knockout Preliminary Finals) makes this comment absolute rubbish of the highest order. It's like saying the Superbowl (and the playoffs that preceded it) devalues the worth of the NFL season. Total crap.

Turning the whole finals knockout is what would devalue the season. I don’t think vfl/afl was ever fully knockout without double chances and/ or right of challenge
Melt away about the double chance if you want but your opinion is minority and I repeat never will occur in the afl.

 

[Dan26]

Turning the whole finals knockout is what would devalue the season.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying the Grand Final devalues the season. which is plainly idiotic.

I don’t think vfl/afl was ever fully knockout without double chances and/ or right of challenge

It should have been. All double chances are money-making matches to re-seed the top-4 teams. They are re-seeding matches, to re-order 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

FINALS ARE NOT ABOUT GETTING SECOND CHANCES - THEY ARE ABOUT PERFORMING ON THE DAY.

Melt away about the double chance if you want but your opinion is minority and I repeat never will occur in the afl.

It does occur in the AFL. The top team can currently be eliminated after one loss without getting a second chances in the Preliminary Final and Grand Final.

The NFL has knockout all the way through, but the top teams are rewarded with a week off instead of a double chance, which is how it obviously should be.

If you support a knockout Grand Final, then you should support an entirely knockout finals series.

 

[Billy ray]

Tangent if i may
Are there any contracts in place other than the grand final? I mean if the top 8 was all non victorian teams (or even the top 6) would ALL 8 finals in weeks 1-3 be played outside Victoria?

 

[Crankyhawk]

No it wouldn't. That's like saying the Grand Final devalues the season. which is plainly idiotic.

that is an idiotic hyperbolic extension which exists only in your own mind.
THere is no point debating with someone who does this.

the top sides that win cash in their double chance with a week off. That's how they get to the prelim directly.

 

[Dan26]

that is an idiotic hyperbolic extension which exists only in your own mind.
THere is no point debating with someone who does this.

the top sides that win cash in their double chance with a week off. That's how they get to the prelim directly.

Double chances are garbage are are not needed.

You yourself support knockout because you support the top team being able to be eliminated in the Grand Final (after one loss)

You yourself support knockout because you support the top team being able to be eliminated in the Preliminary Final. (after one loss)

So the people who pretend to support double chances have no problem:
- with the top being eliminated after one loss in their third final
- with the top team being eliminated after one loss in their second final

But as soon as you suggest the top team can be eliminated in the first final.... my-oh-my , it's like the world is going to end.

The great irony of this, of course, is that under a knockout final-10, the top team can only be eliminated from the second week onwards, which is no different to the current final-8, where the top team can ALSO only be eliminated from the second week onwards.

Under both systems, the EARLIEST exit point for the top teams is week 2, which shows exactly why double chances are not needed. A week off REPLACES the double chance. The benefit of course is that under a knockout system, the top team faces the earliest exist point of week 2 without having to have played a final.

Finals are about performing on the day - not getting second chances for losing.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Double chances are garbage are are not needed.

You yourself support knockout because you support the top team being able to be eliminated in the Grand Final.

You yourself support knockout because you support the top team being able to be eliminated in the Preliminary Final.

So the people who pretend to support double chances have no problem:
- with the top being eliminated after one loss in their third final
- with the top team being eliminated after one loss in their second final

But as soon as you suggest the top team can be eliminated in the first final.... my-oh-my , it's like the world is going to end.

The great irony of this, of course, is that under a knockout final-10, the top team can only be eliminated from the second week onwards. Under the current final-8, the top team can ALSO only be eliminated from the second week onwards.

Under both systems, the EARLIEST exit point for the top teams is week 2, which shows exactly why double chances are not needed. A week off REPLACES the double chance. The benefit of course is that under a knockout system, the top team faces the earliest exist point of week 2 without having to have played a final.

Finals are about performing on the day - not getting second chances for losing.

top teams deserve both a week off and a double chance - which is what they will get under the double final 5 system
if you win to the point where there are no more double chances, you have traded the double chance for another week off
this is how the system works currently in the final 8
it strikes an appropriate balance.
double final 5 also gives more finals and hence more $

 

[Dan26]

top teams deserve both a week off and a double chance

YOU DON'T GET BOTH. Jesus Christ man! Under the current final 8, you get EITHER a second chance for losing OR a week off. You don't get both.

That's the whole point

A Guaranteed week off (100%) in a knockout system replaces a double chance. In the double chance final-8 you have a 50% chance of getting a week off and a 50% chance of having a second chance. ONE OR THE OTHER. Not both. The knockout system takes the 50% chance of having a double chance and adds it to the 50% chance of having a week off and you get a 100% guaranteed week off. And you can only be eliminated from week-2 onwards

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing. That's why we like the Grand Final and the Prelim.

Any system, that uses a knockout GF and PF to end it's finals series should be knockout all the way through.
The NFL is a perfect example. Week off for the top teams instead of a double chance.

 

[Crankyhawk]

YOU DON'T GET BOTH. Jesus Christ man! Under the current final 8, you get EITHER a second chance for losing OR a week off. You don't get both.

That's the whole point

A Guaranteed week off (100%) in a knockout system replaces a double chance. In the double chance final-8 you have a 50% chance of getting a week off and a 50% chance of having a second chance. ONE OR THE OTHER. Not both. The knockout system takes the 50% chance of having a double chance and adds it to the 50% chance of having a week off and you get a 100% guaranteed week off. And you can only be eliminated from week-2 onwards

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing. That's why we like the Grand Final and the Prelim.

Any system, that uses a knockout GF and PF to end it's finals series should be knockout all the way through.
The NFL is a perfect example. Week off for the top teams instead of a double chance.

first of all I am not debating your proposed system, I understand that your system has no double chances

the way that the wildcard more generally seems to be proposed which is the 7 v 10 and 8 v9 in the pre finals bye, then teams 1-4 get both a week off AND a double chance

the way I would propose a final 10 to work (which is 2x final 5s with crossovers) would give 1 and 2 a week off and a double chance, 3-6 get a double chance