The best possible finals system

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Would rather have no last H&A bye and then:

Week 1
- 1 and 2 get a week off.
- 3 plays 6 (elimination final 1) and 4 plays 5 (elimination final 2).

Week 2
- Lowest winner of Week 1 plays 1 (semi final 1)
- Other winner of Week 1 plays 2 (semi final 2)

Week 3
- Grand Final with semi final winners playing off against each other

Use the additional two weeks saved to help have each team playing each team twice in the H&A.

 

[Grizza]

Why does everything have to be changed?

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Would rather have no last H&A bye and then:

Week 1
- 1 and 2 get a week off.
- 3 plays 6 (elimination final 1) and 4 plays 5 (elimination final 2).

Week 2
- Lowest winner of Week 1 plays 1 (semi final 1)
- Other winner of Week 1 plays 2 (semi final 2)

Week 3
- Grand Final with semi final winners playing off against each other

Use the additional two weeks saved to help have each team playing each team twice in the H&A.

The problem with that system - its like 1991

3rd (Geel) played StK (4th ) the game went down down to the wire - the winner (Geel ) got catipulted into a 2nd semi - and the loser (Stk) got thrown out on the bones of their aarse

I dont think the supporters of the 3rd and 4th teams would warm to an elimination final after finishing that high on the ladder

 

[RUNVS]

I personally like the idea the topped ranked sides choosing their opponents.

So for instance this is the ladder

1. Richmond
2. West Coast
3. Collingwood
4. Hawthorn
5. Melbourne
6. Sydney
7. GWS
8. Geelong

Richmond as the number 1 ranked team get to pick who they want to play in the first game.

So lets say Richmond decide that they really want to play Sydney. That means

Richmond vs Sydney (MCG)

Now it is West Coast's turn, and they look at the ladder and decide they really think they stand a great chance against Hawthorn at Optus. So

West Coast vs Hawthorn (Optus)

Now it is Collingwood's turn, and they like the look of Melbourne so

Collingwood vs Melbourne (MCG)

Now it would be Hawthorn's turn, but they have been picked by West Coast already so now it is process of elimination, with the final two teams left

GWS vs Geelong (Spotless)

So the first round of the finals would be

Richmond vs Sydney (MCG)
West Coast vs Hawthorn (Optus)
Collingwood vs Melbourne (MCG)
GWS vs Geelong (Spotless)

So lets say that Richmond, West Coast, Melbourne and GWS win

That means

1. Richmond
2. West Coast
3. Melbourne
4. GWS

Richmond get to make the first pick and Richmond decide they want to play Melbourne so

Richmond vs Melbourne (MCG)

and then West Coast only get the option of GWS so

West Coast vs GWS (Optus)

Then the winner of both those games goes into the Grand Final.

 

[swiftdog]

Honestly? The best system is the current one. It’s close to flawless.

1. Top two get home finals in week one, two or three.
2. Two and three get home finals in week two or three.
3. Top four all get a double chance
4. Week one winners get a week off
4. Five and six get a home final
5. Bottom four are in a week one knock out.

It’s close to as perfect as you can get.

Current system is great from an entertainment point of view. I’m not convinced it’s all that fair and certainly not flawless. If all the higher-ranked teams win then theoretically first has a harder preliminary final than second, that itself is a flaw.

 

[footyfan1978]

I think that a top 6 should be the go, hear me out first with the old final 6 format you get the same amount of finals action with a better standard (no teams making up numbers) and spread out over 5 weeks.

In the other thread someone said how can 1st and 4th have the same oppertunities in the finals this system rewards 1st and 2nd by giving them the triple chance, 3rd and 4th get a double chance and for 5th and 6th as soon as you lose your out.

Below is a diagram showing exactly how it works, in the first diagram the home team wins every week, but in the 2007 and 2008 examples a few upsets are in their to show how it could potentialy work out.

Wow, never seen thread before and so used to shit finals system invented by nufties on here I was expecting another stupid OP but yours actually has merit. When looked at diagram it dawned on me really it is the old traditional final five system with an extra week started a week before September to finalize the rankings of the top 6 in exact order of 1 to 6. This is ok considering the home and away series we have now is incomplete as not everyone has same draw of whom everyone plays so a weekend for top 6 to change order around 1 ranking either way I do not mind at all.

There is a real challenge though despite it being a great system to find the best team of the year. You created this OP when it was a 16 team league and now it expanded further to 18. Not sure 6 out of 18 teams making finals fits with AFL view of how to run the whole season.

The final 8 we have now has it flaws but it is not a total dogs breakfast enough to drop back to only 6 out of 18 making finals. A 4 week final 7 I do not mind but even 7 is probably not enough now. Also if we ever get to 20 clubs a final 6 will get thrown out for sure. I honestly think we stuck with final 8 and make the most of it.

 

[fomoco04]

Nothing wrong with the current finals system. There's a far far bigger problem with the draw/fixture that needs fixing.

 

[dean33]

Honestly? The best system is the current one. It’s close to flawless.

1. Top two get home finals in week one, two or three.
2. Two and three get home finals in week two or three.
3. Top four all get a double chance
4. Week one winners get a week off
4. Five and six get a home final
5. Bottom four are in a week one knock out.

It’s close to as perfect as you can get.

Agree, unless we went back to a final 5 which was a great system but that would never happen.

 

[blue harvest]

Happy with current system.
Worst system ever was the top 6 from the early 90s.
2nd had to play away against 1st - winner through to 2nd semi
3rd plays 4th at home - winner through to 2nd semi

 

[Kirkswan]

I think that a top 6 should be the go, hear me out first with the old final 6 format you get the same amount of finals action with a better standard (no teams making up numbers) and spread out over 5 weeks.

In the other thread someone said how can 1st and 4th have the same oppertunities in the finals this system rewards 1st and 2nd by giving them the triple chance, 3rd and 4th get a double chance and for 5th and 6th as soon as you lose your out.

Below is a diagram showing exactly how it works, in the first diagram the home team wins every week, but in the 2007 and 2008 examples a few upsets are in their to show how it could potentialy work out.

As I read this, with the current bye before the finals, there's a chance that one of the top two teams might only play three games in six weeks... no way would I want any part of that. Even if the pre-finals bye was removed, that's still only three games in five weeks if you continue to win.

 

[footyfan1978]

.
Worst system ever was the top 6 from the early 90s.
2nd had to play away against 1st - winner through to 2nd semi
3rd plays 4th at home - winner through to 2nd semi

Think you got that wrong. Adelaide were 5th in 1993. They actually got a double chance to reach grand final after beating your Hawks as 4th team. So that was 4 v 5 then. It is amazing to think the 5th team on ladder got a double chance to reach grand final. Not even the top team is afforded that luxury now. Those final 6 systems were shockers.

Having said that, this final 6 of OP if used in 1993 would have been so much better to replace what we had.

 

[blue harvest]

Think you got that wrong. Adelaide were 5th in 1993. They actually got a double chance to reach grand final after beating your Hawks as 4th team. So that was 4 v 5 then. It is amazing to think the 5th team on ladder got a double chance to reach grand final. Not even the top team is afforded that luxury now. Those final 6 systems were shockers.

Having said that, this final 6 of OP if used in 1993 would have been so much better to replace what we had.

Yep it only lasted 3 years.
1991 Hawks finish 2nd and have to go to Perth to play the top place Eagles, win that puts you into the 2nd semi which is the direct route to the GF
Cats finish 3rd and played the 4th place Saints, winner also goes through to the 2nd semi. Shambles.

 

[Billy ray]

Top 5 is best system. If we go to 20 teams in say 20 years time, a top 10 (two top 5 systems, odds and evens) would be way to go

 

[St Plugger]

Agree, unless we went back to a final 5 which was a great system but that would never happen.

Of all of the Finals systems, the 5 worked the best as it rewarded the Minor Premiers for being the best team over the season with a weeks break and a double chance. The Minor Premiers may only have to play once to make the GF and twice to become Premiers!
The other systems haven't given this advantage to the best team.
Teams 2 and 3 had a double chance and 4 and 5 could progress if good enough.
Week 1: 4v5 -Elimination final [loser drops out], 2v3 - Qualifying final.
Week 2: !st Semi - winner Elim V loser [loser drops out; Second Semi 1 v winner of Qual final [winner thru to GF, loser to Prelim]
Week 3: Prelim Final Loser Second Semi V winner 1st Semi [winner to GF]
Week4: GF Winner Second semi v winner Prelim.

So this week we'd have in the Elim Final: Melb V Haw, and Qual Final: WC v Coll with both Melb and WC having a home final. Next week Second Semi: Rich V Say WC [Rich home final] 1st Semi Haw v Coll [Haw home final] Third week Prelim Final: WC V Coll [WC home final] GF Rich V WC.
Lets see how close the 8 gets to this result!

 

[dean33]

Of all of the Finals systems, the 5 worked the best as it rewarded the Minor Premiers for being the best team over the season with a weeks break and a double chance. The Minor Premiers may only have to play once to make the GF and twice to become Premiers!
The other systems haven't given this advantage to the best team.
Teams 2 and 3 had a double chance and 4 and 5 could progress if good enough.
Week 1: 4v5 -Elimination final [loser drops out], 2v3 - Qualifying final.
Week 2: !st Semi - winner Elim V loser [loser drops out; Second Semi 1 v winner of Qual final [winner thru to GF, loser to Prelim]
Week 3: Prelim Final Loser Second Semi V winner 1st Semi [winner to GF]
Week4: GF Winner Second semi v winner Prelim.

So this week we'd have in the Elim Final: Melb V Haw, and Qual Final: WC v Coll with both Melb and WC having a home final. Next week Second Semi: Rich V Say WC [Rich home final] 1st Semi Haw v Coll [Haw home final] Third week Prelim Final: WC V Coll [WC home final] GF Rich V WC.
Lets see how close the 8 gets to this result!

Was a great system and definitely favoured the minor premier however the aflwould never cut back the amount of teams and games of the current system. Oh just on your post, pies would get home final over hawks as higher qualifier.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

Top 12

Week 1
1-4 bye
5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9

Week 2
1 v lowest winner (8 to 12th)
2 v 2nd lowest winner
3 v 3rd lowest winner
4 v 4th lowest winner

Week 3
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 4
1 v 2

Every game is sudden death. No one gets a second chance. I’ve never understood why teams should get a second chance just cause they did well in H&A season.

In all honesty, why should Pies get a double chance cause we finished 3rd with an easy draw? While a team like Sydney won 8 times vs top 8 teams this year?

A loss should mean you out of the finals. If ya choke, suck it up and see ya next year. Just like NFL top teams get a week off, but every game is sudden death.

Teams like Essendon who’s form suggests they could make a run in sept but finished outside the 8 get a chance. If your good enough to hit a purple patch for a month after finishing 12th to win the cup good on ya.

And for anyone saying top 12 is too much and degrades the notion of finals for quality teams, I say the top 8 is already BS. If finals are about elite teams then it should just be top 4. And even then, 3 of this years top 4 aren’t even elite.

 

[master bate]

8 is the perfect amount for a 18 team competition where the winner is decided through a serious finals campaign. Probably the perfect amount for a 20 team comp as well.

Top 4 get a great advantage with the qualifying finals and 2nd chance.
Winners of the qualifying finals get a great advantage with the home prelim.
5th and 6th get to host finals.

The bye helps the 5th-8th sides but I don't think it is any disadvantage to the top 4, aside from the help to the lower teams, if that makes any sense.

There's a lot that is right.

A 10 team system with 2 wild card games and then straight knockout finals also appeals to me but I think you need 24+ teams to have a 10 team finals.

 

[GreaterWeStener]

I think the fairest first week of finals is the previous:

QF1: 4v5
QF2: 3v6
QF3: 2v7
QF4: 1v8

Especially considering the finals rankings are based on unbalanced schedules and positions are often decided on %ages.

Of course the unbalance schedule, where no two teams play the same schedule but its all shown on a single table, as if they did, is the bigger issue. It is the only real reason for including more teams in any finals series, but I'm not a fan of adding any more teams, because there are better ways to minimise that issue.

 

[footyfan1978]

Top 4 get a great advantage with the qualifying finals and 2nd chance.
Winners of the qualifying finals get a great advantage with the home prelim.
5th and 6th get to host finals.

That is just wrong. About half or more of the clubs in league do not get finals with a homeground advantage so that is a variable, not a given and not really how to decide finals systems merits. The top 4 get a double chance to make preliminary finals. That is all you can say, you cannot guarantee more than that for many clubs.

 

[footyfan1978]

Top 5 is best system. If we go to 20 teams in say 20 years time, a top 10 (two top 5 systems, odds and evens) would be way to go

Top 10 is probably how they would do it for 20 club league. Agreed. If they do it with the format within it be in essence two final five systems, would be ore than satisfied with it. !,4,5,8 and 10 begin one part of it and 2,3,6,7 and 9 in the other. 1 and 2 getting week one off would make sense. It does mean a 5 week finals system though to have a grand final at the end.

 

[master bate]

That is just wrong. About half or more of the clubs in league do not get finals with a homeground advantage so that is a variable, not a given and not really how to decide finals systems merits. The top 4 get a double chance to make preliminary finals. That is all you can say, you cannot guarantee more than that for many clubs.

Meh, I'll change that to home state then and given the grand final is at the MCG I don't see why teams should ever be too upset.

If you aren't a Victorian team it's a home advantage.

If you are a Victorian team there's a near 50/50 chance (8 out of 17) you're playing a team that travels to you, in your home state and at the venue that the grand final is played at.

The Etihad teams hosting MCG teams are disadvantaged. Dogs/Roos/Saints hosting Pies/Tigers etc is a bit of a raw deal but short of letting them host finals and lock out thousands at Etihad or moving the grand final there's not much that can be done about that.

The losers of the Qualifying finals have great records in the 2nd week, and home state advantage is a part of that.

 

[footyfan1978]

Meh, I'll change that to home state then

It is not meh when some actually do get a massive advantage and some won't. It is not trivial matter. It is a variable that is reality of what we work with. Home state is all you can guarantee for team ranked higher in first few weeks of finals but home ground advantage is completely a variable based on whom the opposing team is. Some clubs will get advantaged, some not. It is what it is. Double chance to reach preliminary finals is the only constant for all top 4 teams in the system.

 

[The_Ru]

View attachment 553011
11 elimination games. A week off for the Top 4 teams. 1st and 2nd seeds can't play each other until the Grand Final.

I'm not a fan of the idea of a final 12 at all BUT, if it were to happen, I reckon you have your week 2 matchups wrong.

Wouldn't it be fairer for 4th to play 5th rather than 6th and 3rd to play 6th rather than 5th? You're theoretically better off finishing 4th than 3rd in your version.

 

[frenchconnection]

Top 12

Week 1
1-4 bye
5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9

Week 2
1 v lowest winner (8 to 12th)
2 v 2nd lowest winner
3 v 3rd lowest winner
4 v 4th lowest winner

Week 3
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 4
1 v 2

Every game is sudden death. No one gets a second chance. I’ve never understood why teams should get a second chance just cause they did well in H&A season.

In all honesty, why should Pies get a double chance cause we finished 3rd with an easy draw? While a team like Sydney won 8 times vs top 8 teams this year?

A loss should mean you out of the finals. If ya choke, suck it up and see ya next year. Just like NFL top teams get a week off, but every game is sudden death.

Teams like Essendon who’s form suggests they could make a run in sept but finished outside the 8 get a chance. If your good enough to hit a purple patch for a month after finishing 12th to win the cup good on ya.

And for anyone saying top 12 is too much and degrades the notion of finals for quality teams, I say the top 8 is already BS. If finals are about elite teams then it should just be top 4. And even then, 3 of this years top 4 aren’t even elite.

You must all be bored or something - for goodness sake leave the game alone, otherwise it will end up being a Mickey Mouse affair!

 

[PCORF]

With 18 teams there should be a final 9

Week 1

EF 8th vs 9th, winner advances to 1st elimination final and plays an away game vs 5th.
1st to 7th have the pre finals bye. It would be Geelong vs North Melbourne.

The rest of the finals is the same as the current top 8.

Week 2
1QF 1 vs 4 (Richmond vs Hawthorn)
2QF 2 vs 3 (West Coast vs Collingwood)
1EF 5 vs winner of 8 vs 9 (Melbourne vs winner Geelong/North)
2EF 6 vs 7 (Sydney vs GWS Giants)

Week 3

1SF
2SF

Week 4

1PF
2PF

Week 5

GF