Opinion If you could, would you reward the side who finishes top of the ladder as the grand final host?

[Bungeye]

Who ever finishes first has the right to immunity against Covid.

 

[Rickee]

No, the MCG is the largest stadium in the country and I feel like that gives it the right to be the host of the Grand Final be default. Notwithstanding Melbourne is where the headquarters of the league and the majority of teams are based and it just makes logistical and practical, as well as historical, sense.

If other states had stadiums the size of the MCG, I could potentially see the worth of it being rotated on a very irregular basis, but for me it comes down purely to economics, and a 110,000 seat stadium is going to generate more money for the national games than a 35,000 seater in Brisbane, or a 60,000 seater in Perth. However, there is also the impediment that the game is likely to have to have it's time slot be inconsistent due to weather and time zone differences.

 

[Coolangatta]

Best suggestion of the thread IMO

The only problem is that the grand final destination has to be decided about 7-8 weeks before the grand final at the latest because of the logistical nightmare of planning a month out. If I'm wrong, and they can arrange grand finals later, then yes, let the top of the ladder decide any destination they want, crowd capacity be damned. The best alternative is that the reigning premier decides where they'd like to play the grand final the following season.

 

[The 747]

The only problem is that the grand final destination has to be decided about 7-8 weeks before the grand final at the latest because of the logistical nightmare of planning a month out. If I'm wrong, and they can arrange grand finals later, then yes, let the top of the ladder decide any destination they want, crowd capacity be damned. The best alternative is that the reigning premier decides where they'd like to play the grand final the following season.

True, although if it were to be moved I personally would prefer it was just rotated ala the Superbowl.

Hosting rights creates lots of problems which have been covered in this thread. Don't mind the idea of the premier getting to nominate - so long as every premier gets to nominate their home ground - but that will never happen.

 

[speedpeck23]

Used to think the G should always have it (tradition, crowd etc) but I like the idea of the highest GF qualifier getting it. Adds an extra dimension to the competition. It's great for expansion . Sydney has 80,000 seat venue. Perth can go to 80,000 ...Adelaide could increase to 70,000. Gabba could put on another level get up to maybe 60,000...It would be massive for the game... club membership for non Victorian clubs would grow significantly knowing there was some sort of chance to get a home GF. An MCG GF would still be pretty common. It will probably happen after 2058!

 

[Coolangatta]

Used to think the G should always have it (tradition, crowd etc) but I like the idea of the highest GF qualifier getting it. Adds an extra dimension to the competition. It's great for expansion . Sydney has 80,000 seat venue. Perth can go to 80,000 ...Adelaide could increase to 70,000. Gabba could put on another level get up to maybe 60,000...It would be massive for the game... club membership for non Victorian clubs would grow significantly knowing there was some sort of chance to get a home GF. An MCG GF would still be pretty common. It will probably happen after 2058!

Even if they lose? I think it should be the GF winner because it embraces the idea that to be the best, you have to beat the best on their terms, so if the premier gets back to the big dance next year and they lose, the new premier has beaten them on their terms, making the dethroning even sweeter. That won't happen, though, because no one wants a grand final at the Giants or Suns home ground, or at Marvel or Geelong instead of the MCG. The thing is that GWS/Dogs prelim was one of the best. It helped that it was a tight and brilliant game, but the atmosphere was electric, and the small, narrow ground amplified the pressure and intensity of the match. I think ground size and capacity is overrated and the GF could be epic anywhere, but that's just me.

 

[The 747]

Even if they lose? I think it should be the GF winner because it embraces the idea that to be the best, you have to beat the best on their terms, so if the premier gets back to the big dance next year and they lose, the new premier has beaten them on their terms, making the dethroning even sweeter. That won't happen, though, because no one wants a grand final at the Giants or Suns home ground, or at Marvel or Geelong instead of the MCG. The thing is that GWS/Dogs prelim was one of the best. It helped that it was a tight and brilliant game, but the atmosphere was electric, and the small, narrow ground amplified the pressure and intensity of the match. I think ground size and capacity is overrated and the GF could be epic anywhere, but that's just me.

I agree but good luck convincing the AFL of that. Cash is king for this not-for-profit entity (lol).

 

[kid_a]

Every 2nd year at the mcg, every other year cities have to bid to host it, like the nfl with the superbowl.

Criteria to be met would be a minimum capacity of 50,000.
The same city can't win the hosting rights twice in a row.

So it'd look something like this....
2021- mcg
2022- Perth stadium
2023- mcg
2024- Sydney Olympic stadium
2025- mcg
2026- adelaide oval

Obvsiously the hosting city has events and activities around town on GF week.

Will never happen obviously, but that's what I'd love.

 

[WestCoast05]

That just advantages the teams who play out of the larger stadia and forces a group of clubs to host GFs not in their home ground.

Either the argument is capacity - in which case MCG hosts - or the argument is fairness - in which case any team finishing top gets a home GF. Your halfway argument is not valid and not surprisingly favours the team you support.

Just set a capacity criteria.
And for the record that capacity criteria should be well above the 60k of Perth Stadium.
I think 75k / 80k as a minimum. What a great incentive for BigFooty stadiums to built around the country.

 

[The 747]

Just set a capacity criteria.
And for the record that capacity criteria should be well above the 60k of Perth Stadium.
I think 75k / 80k as a minimum. What a great incentive for BigFooty stadiums to built around the country.

OK, if we set a capacity criteria - and yes moar big stadia - then we have to rotate the GF correct?

 

[Coolangatta]

Does anyone know what Optus, Adelaide Oval, the Gabba, and the SCG could upgrade themselves to for crowd capacity? I saw someone say 80k for Optus. Could they get to 100k? Could the others? Knowing the AFL, anything less than 100k wouldn't make them budge from the MCG.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Havent read thread - so someone might have mentioned it - but i would doubt it

The team finishing on top ( how i would reward them ) - as long as they have at least 20 wins - so they have had an outstanding year

Then if they get beaten in the Preliminary final then they have got the right to challenge that team who beat them

You could have the ridiculous situation where a team wins 22 out of 22 - wins its qual final by 100 plus points - and then still has to go into a knockout sudden prelim ( which is an absolute joke ) and might lose that prelim - and thus are eliminated - thats not right - they get the right to challenge - thats their reward for finishing on top with at least 20 wins

 

[Numero Uno]

3 out of 4 years MCG
4th year, tender it out to other states

Stipulation that the stadium meet a certain criteria (size, facilities etc)
Ironically the Gabba is not even close

 

[yodellinhank]

It will probably happen after 2058!

Don't know how much longer they expect the Southern Stand, and its AFL reserve, to go on without a proper rebuild. When it comes to finding the money for that there's going to be further agreements made to pay for it all.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Yeh a Grand Final at Manuka Oval would be epic.

 

[Schauermann]

Built a neutral venue in Alice Springs...

 

[telsor]

3 out of 4 years MCG
4th year, tender it out to other states

Stipulation that the stadium meet a certain criteria (size, facilities etc)
Ironically the Gabba is not even close

Size, facilities, etc would include $$$, which by itself would rule out most alternatives (or at least make it unattractive to bid for).

The other interesting part would be how the MCG deal would look without finals. AFL still needs a deal with them, and the AFL members reserve, and without the lure of finals, the 'new deal' could mean the millions they make during the year could be cut significantly.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

I like the idea but you would need a stack of caveats.

For example, stadiums that only hold in excess of 40,000 people can host the grand final.

That being the case: Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane.

Seeing as the MCG holds more than Marvel Stadium and whatever Geelong's stadium is called these days, that is the preferred option in Victoria.

Over a six-year cycle it would rotate where the MCG would have it twice with all the over states once.

For example:
2021: MCG
2022: Optus Stadium
2023: Adelaide Oval
2024: Sydney's Olympic Stadium
2025: Gabba
2026: MCG

But you could even increase the amount of grand finals at the MCG depending on the caveats in place.

For example, let's say Adelaide finish top and choose their home ground. They get knocked out in the first two weeks of finals, then they can sacrifice their opportunity and the default ground is the MCG. Adelaide don't get the same opportunity again in the six-year cycle. I doubt their government would agree to that but it is just a thought.

Or you just go the Superbowl style and lock in a ground/state way in advance regardless of where a team finishes.

Anyway, it would all get very messy but if COVID-19 has shown us one aspect of human nature, it is that events can be changed quickly if they need to.

But in principle, I like the idea of a team finishing top being able to choose their home ground for the grand final.

The alternative option is to rotate the grand final as stated above.

 

[Seeds]

Absolutely. The top qualifying team should have the right to hold the GF.

There is no top qualifying team. If there was there would be no need for a grand final.

lets say the grand final is played between teams that finished 1 and 4 on the home and away ladder. Except team 1 lost their first final (to team 4) and had to win a semi and then a prelim as the away team. Team 4 however won its first final (against team 1), qualified for the prelim as the home team which it won.

who is the highest qualified team in the grand final? Do you think team 1 is now the home team in the gf even though it was the away team in the last final and team 4 was the home prelim side? Or is team 4 now the highest qualified side given it qualified for the prelims first Even thought it finished the home and away season in fourth?

you could easily make an argument for either. There is no higher ranked side come grand finals.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

There is no top qualifying team. If there was there would be no need for a grand final.

lets say the grand final is played between teams that finished 1 and 4 on the home and away ladder. Except team 1 lost their first final (to team 4) and had to win a semi and then a prelim as the away team. Team 4 however won its first final (against team 1), qualified for the prelim as the home team which it won.

who is the highest qualified team in the grand final? Do you think team 1 is now the home team in the gf even though it was the away team in the last final and team 4 was the home prelim side? Or is team 4 now the highest qualified side given it qualified for the prelims first Even thought it finished the home and away season in fourth?

you could easily make an argument for either. There is no higher ranked side come grand finals.

I think he/she meant the team that finishes on top of the ladder after the home and away season has been completed.

 

[Seeds]

I think he/she meant the team that finishes on top of the ladder after the home and away season has been completed.

Exactly and im responding to that As not being right. In my example the higher ranked home and away team has already lost its higher ranking for the prelim because it failed in the first final and used a double chance. Why should they get their ranking back for the grand final? Higher home and away ranking gives you the double chance. If you use it up you get to keep playing but your higher ranking is lost.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

Exactly and im responding to that As not being right. In my example the higher ranked home and away team has already lost its higher ranking for the prelim because it failed in the first final and used a double chance. Why should they get their ranking back for the grand final? Higher home and away ranking gives you the double chance. If you use it up you get to keep playing but your higher ranking is lost.

It is a forum. People are entitled to express views.

But one aspect most Victorians do not take into consideration is the cost factor for fans having to travel to Victoria to watch their team play in the grand final. For the vast majority, especially those in Perth, it is unaffordable.

And if your team plays two or more finals away, the cost becomes ridiculous.

 

[Coolangatta]

Anyway, it would all get very messy but if COVID-19 has shown us one aspect of human nature, it is that events can be changed quickly if they need to.

But in principle, I like the idea of a team finishing top being able to choose their home ground for the grand final.

The alternative option is to rotate the grand final as stated above.

I don't know. I initially said the side who finishes on top of the ladder could get the hosting option, but there's a convincing case that you need to prepare the grand final sooner than the last round. So, the next best option would be to reward the reigning premier, which increases the probability that if the premier has a good follow-up year and the premiers rival club does well, that if they were to face off in a grand final, it'd be in their home state. No one wants to see a Dockers vs. Eagles grand final at the SCG. If you were going to rotate it, the MCG should get it 10 out of every 18 years because there are 10 Victorian teams, but the risk of rotating it is that you might get a Swans-Giants grand final in Perth instead of Sydney.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Why would you play a Grand Final in front of 50,000 when you can play it in front of 100,000? Take the emotion or your hurt feelings out of the equation. Anywhere but the ‘G is silly.

 

[RichLeMonde]

so you are left with the same two groups that I’ve used.
vics beating Non vics, and vice versa.
you've claimed that 50% is the true calculation. Which is one group compared to the other.
which are the same groups that I’ve used.
so don’t give that crap about tiny data samples.

You tried to make a point by comparing margins in GFs in the categories of Vic def non-Vic, non-Vic def Vic, non-Vic def non-Vic, and Vic def Vic.
I made a point by looking at ratio of interstate winners in Vic v non-Vic, and so used the sample of all GFs with Vic vs non-Vic.
My sample thus is n = 18.
Your samples thus are: n = 9, n = 9, n = 9, n = 3 (although you're mainly interested in only 2 of those groups).
So our samples are different. My sample of 18 is not the same as your 2 samples of 9 (Vic def non-Vic plus non-Vic def. Vic), since you are calculating the mean for each of those two different groups - which are different - whereas I am calculating the winning ratio for non-Vics for the 2 groups combined. This is a fairly basic point.

statistically that it is too binary to judge performance, margins indicate HGA far better than W/L does.

Yes this is true, but only when you have adequate sample sizes. If each of your pools was n = 1000, and mine was n = 2000, then sure, winning margin average would be more relevant than winning ratio. But that's not the case - the samples are microscopic.

the margin for vics beating non vics is almost twice the opposite.
If you presented that variance (on a larger sample size) to any statistician or professional sports gambler, and asked them to put their money down on one or the other, no prizes for guessing where they’d put it. Every time.

No, because your samples are so small. This is exactly why, in Olympic diving or gymnastics judging, they disregard the highest and lowest scores, because single outliers distort the mean so much. If Olympic diving had 500 judges, they would not need to remove highest and lowest scores. This is why statisticians, in contexts like this, prefer the median, rather than the mean, because individual outliers distort the mean too much.
With small samples, the dichotomy of win/lose is actually a better measure, because no single result has much of a distorting effect on data - 20 toin cosses is enough to tell if a coin is weighted. If you think a smart gambler would make a bet based on a nominal variable (margins) when n = 9 rather than a dichotomous variable (win/loss) when n = 18 then I suggest you stay away from casinos.

I’ve said enough. I know you won’t accept my post because that’s what BF is. You’ll probably resort to some childish insult about growing up and basic statistics. Again.

Not sure why your'e trying to claim the moral high ground. You are the one who made generalised comments about the putative behaviour of an entire state, which is not really different to making a generalisation about a race or ethnic group. I just called you out on it.