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

[Orange crush]

The whole point of a wildcard round is to recognise that sometimes you get stronger conferences/divisions than others so you keep a couple of spots open for teams who have a good record but didn't win their conference/division.

The AFL doesn't have conferences or divisions so it's just a final 10 which is dumb. For the sake of one extra finals game you're watering down the whole season.

Don’t come in here talking sense … ffs

 

[peetoo]

Yes it has to be a proper finals series if it’s 9 or 10 qualifying for finals. Preferably one which gives the top two a clear advantage over the other eight. Or seven

You’d also home if with 19 or 20 teams thers only a couple of double ups after the 18 or 19 rounds where teams play each other once.
Any equalisation needs to take 20 teams into account, or it’s just a joke
Once Tassie comes in every team will travel there at least every other year, so those ‘complaints’ will be irrelevant. This will apply equally to west coast and Collingwood

 

[Dan26]

And when the wild card games turn out to be poor spectacles?

Why in Gods name would a knockout elimination final between 7v10 or 8v9 be a poor spectacle?

Would GWS vs Collingwood this week (7v10) be a poor spectacle?

Would Bris vs Melb this week (8v9) be a poor spectacle? That match-up happened two weeks ago and it was a thriller.

 

[peetoo]

Why in Gods name would a knockout elimination final between 7v10 or 8v9 be a poor spectacle?

Would GWS vs Collingwood this week (7v10) be a poor spectacle?

Would Bris vs Melb this week (8v9) be a poor spectacle? That match-up happened two weeks ago and it was a thriller.

Mediocre teams. It will probably happen so let’s just see shall we? Happy to be wrong

 

[Dan26]

A final-10 doesn't have to have more finals matches. In fact, I think it works better if it remains over four weeks, and remains at 9 finals matches.

Certainly with 18 teams, and the possibility of 19, the knockout final-10 over 4 weeks, must be a serious consideration.

Winners in bold

WEEK 1
1st elimination final: 7 v 10
2nd elimination Final: 8 v 9

WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest ranked Elimination final winner (1 v 8)
2nd Semi Final: 2nd vs highest ranked Elimination final winner (2 v 7)
3rd Semi Final : 3 v 6
4th Semi Final : 4 v 5

WEEK 3
1st Preliminary Final: highest ranked team vs lowest ranked team (1 v 4)
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest ranked team vs 2nd lowest ranked team (2 v 3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final (1 v 2)


None of the top-6 can be eliminated before the second week so, no different to how the top-4 are currently treated under the current system.

There are five sets of advantages:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

NO DOUBLE CHANCES (good riddance)

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances. This system encapsulates everything finals should be, whilst giving the AFL less dead rubbers in the last few weeks of the season.

 

[cutterman]

Who decided that the finals should be half the competition? They are finals, they should be hard to get into and hard to win. Ok, equalisation is in and you miss finals by percentage despite finishing 13-10. Stiff, be better.

8 out of 20 in finals works well, more than half of the competition are have nots, finals spots are genuinely earned, you must be in the top 40% of sides to play in them.

Remember prior to the final 8 coming in it was as follows (ignoring war years):
1991-93: top 6 out of 15 teams
1987-90: top 5 out of 14 teams
1972-86: top 5 out of 12 teams
1925-71: top 4 out of 12 teams
1915-24: top 4 out of 9 teams
1908-14: top 4 out of 10 teams
1897-1907: top 4 out of 8 teams

So from 1908 all the way to 1993 less than half the teams made the finals series, why do we need to find our way back to a relatively new phenomenon of half the teams making the finals (which has only been the case for 17 years in AFL/VFL history)

 

[justlookingaround]

Not sure.

But I am sure that people that express opinions and frame them as questions are flogs.

I think you have misinterpreted an attempt at discussion for personal endorsement.
But thanks for your valuable contribution...

 

[ioppolo]

A final-10 doesn't have to have more finals matches. In fact, I think it works better if it remains over four weeks, and remains at 9 finals matches.

Certainly with 18 teams, and the possibility of 19, the knockout final-10 over 4 weeks, must be a serious consideration.

Winners in bold

WEEK 1
1st elimination final: 7 v 10
2nd elimination Final: 8 v 9

WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest ranked Elimination final winner (1 v 8)
2nd Semi Final: 2nd vs highest ranked Elimination final winner (2 v 7)
3rd Semi Final : 3 v 6
4th Semi Final : 4 v 5

WEEK 3
1st Preliminary Final: highest ranked team vs lowest ranked team (1 v 4)
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest ranked team vs 2nd lowest ranked team (2 v 3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final (1 v 2)


None of the top-6 can be eliminated before the second week so, no different to how the top-4 are currently treated under the current system.

There are five sets of advantages:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

NO DOUBLE CHANCES (good riddance)

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances. This system encapsulates everything finals should be, whilst giving the AFL less dead rubbers in the last few weeks of the season.

Imagine the melts if 1st had an off day and 8th had an on day and knocked them out.

 

[Dan26]

Who decided that the finals should be half the competition? They are finals, they should be hard to get into and hard to win. Ok, equalisation is in and you miss finals by percentage despite finishing 13-10. Stiff, be better.

8 out of 20 in finals works well, more than half of the competition are have nots, finals spots are genuinely earned, you must be in the top 40% of sides to play in them.

Remember prior to the final 8 coming in it was as follows (ignoring war years):
1991-93: top 6 out of 15 teams
1987-90: top 5 out of 14 teams
1972-86: top 5 out of 12 teams
1925-71: top 4 out of 12 teams
1915-24: top 4 out of 9 teams
1908-14: top 4 out of 10 teams
1897-1907: top 4 out of 8 teams

So from 1908 all the way to 1993 less than half the teams made the finals series, why do we need to find our way back to a relatively new phenomenon of half the teams making the finals (which has only been the case for 17 years in AFL/VFL history)

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,

 

[Dan26]

Imagine the melts if 1st had an off day and 8th had an on day and knocked them out.

The top team (in a knockout final-10) has a week off and can't be eliminated before the second week. They CANNOT be eliminated in the first week.

That's exactly like it is under the current system. The top-4 under the current final-8 can't be eliminated in the first week - only from the second week.

If the top team in a final-10 has a week off and plays 8th who played a tough match the week before. AND they have home ground advantage. AND they get the advantage of playing the weakest team in the finals. Then if they lose to 8th, that's not the finals systems fault. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances for losing.

And besides, the top team under the current final 8 can be eliminated after one loss without getting a second chance.

For example - last years Preliminary Final. Imagine the melts if 1st (Collingwood) had an off day and 6th (GWS) knocked them out without Collingwood getting a second chance. It's no different.

The best antidote to "having an off day" is DON'T have an off day. Perform on the day and win. That's what finals are all about.

 

[VolgaBoatman]

Hard to get a final series with more than 8 teams. The issue is the margins around top-2 / top-4 / top-8 when the fixture isn't equal. Imagine if (for example) Freo played Carlton at Optus instead of Adelaide oval, they had their chances to win, but they may have had an extra 2-3 goal advantage at home. They would now be 2nd and Carlton would be 4th.

 

[Dan26]

For those interested, this is how a knockout final-9 would work in the current 18-team league:

*winners in bold

WEEK ONE
1st, 2nd, 3rd - week off

4th vs 9th - 1st Elimination Final
5th vs 8th - 2nd Elimination Final
6th vs 7th - 3rd Elimination Final

WEEK TWO
1st vs lowest seeded winner from week-one (eg 1st vs 6th)
2nd vs 2nd-lowest-seeded winner from week-one (eg 2nd vs 5th)
3rd vs highest seeded winner from week-one (eg 3rd vs 4th)

• Highest seeded winner from the above matches through to the Grand Final (week off)
• Other two winners from the above matches to play each other in Preliminary Final

WEEK THREE
2nd-lowest seeded winner from week-two vs lowest-seeded winner from week-two (eg 2 v 3)

WEEK FOUR
highest seeded winner from week-two vs winner of Preliminary Final (eg 1 vs 2)

 

[cutterman]

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,

If 8 teams make it out of 20 as opposed to 10, then there are 10% less teams making the finals, and 40% in total. I think that's a much better outcome, while maintaining the 9 game finals series money spinner.

Regardless of whether there are 8, 10, or 15 teams making it there are going to be teams that miss by a whisker.

As a purist, I'd much prefer a higher bar being there to get into finals, making the finals more valuable. Definitely hear your point around entertainment though

 

[Dan26]

If 8 teams make it out of 20 as opposed to 10, then there are 10% less teams making the finals, and 40% in total. I think that's a much better outcome

The AFL will never reduce the percentage of teams in the finals as a long term strategy . It won't happen. If it does go to a 20-team league they won't leave it at 8 - they will obviously go to 10.

As a purist, I'd much prefer a higher bar being there to get into finals, making the finals more valuable. Definitely hear your point around entertainment though

This "high-bar" stuff I hear bit, but in reality it is yesterday's thinking. All the big leagues comparable to the AFL have either half, nearly half or more than half. The NBA has 66% of teams making the playoffs. The NFL, 44%.

Let's look at the EPL which doesn't have "finals" as such, but the motivations of where teams want to finish is a bit like a final-10 in a 20 team league.

Let me explain:

• the top-4 play for champions league.
• 5-6-7 play for the lesser European competition.
• The bottom-3 are relegated.

So, 10 of the 20 positions are positions you want to get into (the top -7 spots) OR want to avoid (the bottom 3 spots)

So even the EPL has 10 of the 20 positions being "relevant" positions which mean something. That's half.

Half, therefore as a minimum, is where the AFL should go with this.

 

[peetoo]

If 8 teams make it out of 20 as opposed to 10, then there are 10% less teams making the finals, and 40% in total. I think that's a much better outcome, while maintaining the 9 game finals series money spinner.

Regardless of whether there are 8, 10, or 15 teams making it there are going to be teams that miss by a whisker.

As a purist, I'd much prefer a higher bar being there to get into finals, making the finals more valuable. Definitely hear your point around entertainment though

For most of the VFL, it was a third. 4 from 12

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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?

No, half the teams in finals is way too many. If we had an equitable fixture, a third or less would be ideal. Maybe even only four teams. With the fixture as it is, eight gives more than enough leeway.
Assuming the purpose of finals is to determine a premier. There's no need to give more than the few teams who show enough ability across the whole season to win the thing a chance at doing so. (Yes, I know, Bulldogs, but that was very much a freak occurrence.)

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??

See above. Eight is probably the right amount for a 24 team league. Arguably six, even then.
Although at 22-24 teams, I would prefer promotion/relegation, even with all the changes to contracts, club distributions, and (ideally scrapping the) draft that would include.

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.

And this is why a final ten will happen. Nothing to do with the football, all to do with media deals. Because the real purpose of finals these days is money, not to determine the premier.

 

[Dan26]

No, half the teams in finals is way too many.

On what basis? The EPL as stated above essentially has "10" out of 20, when you take into account there are 10 spots teams are trying to win to get into, or win to avoid. The NFL 44% of teams in playoffs, the NBA 66%.

If we had an equitable fixture, a third or less would be ideal. .

That would be an absolute disaster. Imagine the dead rubbers every week from this point of the season onwards. Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe even only four

LOL

Assuming the purpose of finals is to determine a premier. There's no need to give more than the few teams who show enough ability across the whole season to win the thing a chance at doing so. (Yes, I know, Bulldogs, but that was very much a freak occurrence.)

If you really wanted the best system to determine the true best team, you'd just give the premiership to the team on top of the ladder. Finals are not the best way to determine the premier and never have been. We have finals because they are exciting, not because they are fair.

And this is exactly the reason why more teams in the finals is better than fewer (within reason). We are already using a system that is unfair, given that the top team/s can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final anyway. And we like the use of finals, despite that unfairness because it is exciting, not because it is fair. So if you are going to use an unfair system like finals to determine the premier, it makes sense to maximise it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, by world standards in using half the teams (or half plus one) to qualify for the finals.

Look at the Euros at the moment. The group games were essentially the "home and away" rounds, and then there are the knockout "finals". After the 24-team group games were over, SIXTEEN teams out of 24 qualified for the knockout finals.

And this is why a final ten will happen. Nothing to do with the football, all to do with media deals. Because the real purpose of finals these days is money, not to determine the premier.

No, it's just living in reality. The entertainment aspect of the game (avoiding dead rubbers) is just as important as the sporting aspect. BOTH are important. You can't ignore one, and you are ignoring the entertainment aspect.

• If you don't like "lots of teams in the finals" then instead campaign to give the premiership to the team on top of the ladder.
• If you like finals, then maximize them like the rest of the world does.

It's one or the other.

 

[Pivot Piece]

A final 10 actually makes the finals less competitive because it means 7-10 have to win 5 finals to win it (under the “wildcard” model) - you’ll never see another Bulldogs 2016 situation. Having said that I don’t mind some variation of a final 10 when we get to 20 teams.

 

[Clark G]

For those interested, this is how a knockout final-9 would work in the current 18-team league:

*winners in bold

WEEK ONE
1st, 2nd, 3rd - week off

4th vs 9th - 1st Elimination Final
5th vs 8th - 2nd Elimination Final
6th vs 7th - 3rd Elimination Final

WEEK TWO
1st vs lowest seeded winner from week-one (eg 1st vs 6th)
2nd vs 2nd-lowest-seeded winner from week-one (eg 2nd vs 5th)
3rd vs highest seeded winner from week-one (eg 3rd vs 4th)

• Highest seeded winner from the above matches through to the Grand Final (week off)
• Other two winners from the above matches to play each other in Preliminary Final

WEEK THREE
2nd-lowest seeded winner from week-two vs lowest-seeded winner from week-two (eg 2 v 3)

WEEK FOUR
highest seeded winner from week-two vs winner of Preliminary Final (eg 1 vs 2)

I have seen this finals format suggested before and I even suggested it in another thread. I don’t mind it, but it will never be implemented due to there being just the one preliminary final.

 

[Clark G]

A final-10 doesn't have to have more finals matches. In fact, I think it works better if it remains over four weeks, and remains at 9 finals matches.

Certainly with 18 teams, and the possibility of 19, the knockout final-10 over 4 weeks, must be a serious consideration.

Winners in bold

WEEK 1
1st elimination final: 7 v 10
2nd elimination Final: 8 v 9

WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest ranked Elimination final winner (1 v 8)
2nd Semi Final: 2nd vs highest ranked Elimination final winner (2 v 7)
3rd Semi Final : 3 v 6
4th Semi Final : 4 v 5

WEEK 3
1st Preliminary Final: highest ranked team vs lowest ranked team (1 v 4)
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest ranked team vs 2nd lowest ranked team (2 v 3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final (1 v 2)


None of the top-6 can be eliminated before the second week so, no different to how the top-4 are currently treated under the current system.

There are five sets of advantages:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

NO DOUBLE CHANCES (good riddance)

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances. This system encapsulates everything finals should be, whilst giving the AFL less dead rubbers in the last few weeks of the season.

Not saying it should be ten teams in finals instead of eight, but if it was to go to ten, this is a good format. The current final eight system isn’t the worst, but it has its flaws. You can finish as low as fourth and win the flag after getting a second chance, while at the same time the top team can be knocked out without getting a second chance.

 

[Dan26]

Not saying it should be ten teams in finals instead of eight, but if it was to go to ten, this is a good format. The current final eight system isn’t the worst, but it has its flaws. You can finish as low as fourth and win the flag after getting a second chance, while at the same time the top team can be knocked out without getting a second chance.

Exactly.

Double chances are complete bullshit and should not be used in any system that has a knockout Grand Final and a knockout Preliminary Final. They are totally unnecessary.

 

[peetoo]

Exactly.

Double chances are complete bullshit and should not be used in any system that has a knockout Grand Final and a knockout Preliminary Final. They are totally unnecessary.

Particularly extended to 4th on ladder, 4 was the finals qualifiers for long enough

Didn’t it start as a right to challenge for the minor premier if they didn’t win it?

 

[Dan26]

Particularly extended to 4th on ladder, 4 was the finals qualifiers for long enough

It doesn't matter if you are first you shouldn't get a second chance. Under the current system the top team doesn't get one if they lose the Preliminary Final.

As long as the finals are seeded correctly (where highest plays the lowest) and weeks off are given to higher seeded teams, then double chances are simply not needed.

Double chance finals are not really even "finals." How can it be a "final" when it's not the final match for either team???

I absolutely despise double chances and everything they stand for. Get rid of them.

 

[Ess2025]

I get the idea. I wouldn't say it doesn't have merit. Problem is, that if you introduce an extra two teams in order to reward them for solid seasons, where does it end? For example, our current ladder has 10th to 13th on the same number of wins, that is, 36 points. So, if all else being equal over the remainder of the H/A season, some would be rewarded while others miss by percentage. That's how the current 8 functions already.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It doesn't matter if you are first you shouldn't get a second chance. Under the current system the top team doesn't get one if they lose the Preliminary Final.

As long as the finals are seeded correctly (where highest plays the lowest) and weeks off are given to higher seeded teams, then double chances are simply not needed.

Double chance finals are not really even "finals." How can it be a "final" when it's not the final match for either team???

I absolutely despise double chances and everything they stand for. Get rid of them.

Not to disagree or agree with this on sporting merit, but going back to 1897 as to why the 8 clubs broke away from the VFA and invented a finals series, there's always been an incentive to play more finals. That is, the AFL gets 100% of ticketing etc. revenue from a finals game, as opposed to the home club. So playing 8 finals in 3 weeks, and giving significant byes to top teams to reduce the amount of games is something that's not going to happen.

Even agreeing with your arguments about pure knockout being fair, the current system does replicate that enough (1st and 2nd still have to lose at home where a strong HGA should still theoretically exist, at some stage in finals to not make the GF).

The old McIntyre Final 8 system is a better pure finals system for fairness if wanting to only eliminate 2 teams per week but runs into the issues where all or most of the games have to be played simultaneously or in a specific order in the first week otherwise you risk 3v6 and 4v5 being dead rubbers with both teams playing in week 2 anyway irrespective of win loss if 1v8 and 2v7 play each other before those games and 1 and 2 win. Hence commercial interests for the current system taking over, allowing flexibility of when teams play week 1.