The best possible finals system

[Power Raid]

Week 1
A top 8 with no double chances

1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

Week 2
The highest placed winner plays the lowest
If
1v8 - 1 wins
2v7 - 7 wins
3v6 - 3 ins
4v5 - 5 wins

therefor
1v7
3v5

Week 3
GF


Benefits:
No double chances (if you lose you don't deserve to be the premier)
No week off for some. If your premiership quality, you don't need an unfair advantage

Negatives
Less revenue. To fix that we can have the top 16 in wk1 and then as per above. I might see port play finals with a top 16.

 

[footyfan1978]

I've long held the view that the top sides deserve a double chance that lasts beyond the first week of finals (as used to be the case in the old top 5). Currently, the double chance only applies to week 1. Win that, and a team heads straight to a sudden death prelim. No more double chance.

In the interests of fairness I would advocate that the team who qualifies directly to the prelim gets a double chance if they lose. The team that plays them faces sudden death, but if they win, they have to saddle up again next week and do it again a second time (possibly on their home ground this time).

This would necessitate a 5 week finals system, with the possibility that the 4th week is effectively a bye week (if the two teams who qualify directly to the prelims both win their prelim).

In essence that is like returning to the old challenge system they had in 1920's. Not going to happen. AFL like more certainty in their system and cannot encroach on cricket season. Part of reason Grand Final Replay's are gone too. When the league was just part of the sporting world we could do it. Now it is seen as part of sporting/entertainment and tv industry this is never going to happen. I agree with you wanting teams up top two rewarded a bit more but at same time our home and away series is not as fair as it used to be to be certain top two deserve such a significant reward. A soft draw may see a side in top 2 or 3 that maybe would not be if teams play each other twice. So maybe the final 8 we have fits what we dealing with.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

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.

Why does 4th have a lower seeded opponent (if likely results occur) than 3rd in that scenario?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The current system is fine.

 

[DrEvil_]

Too many byes. Geelong would never win a flag.

 

[Blackas87]

Highest ranked team should always play the lowest ranked team that gets through to the next week.

Week 1 elimination finals
5v8
6v7

Week 2 semi finals
3v6
4v5

Week 3 preliminary finals
1v4
2v3

Week 4 Grand Final
1v2

 

[GreaterWeStener]

That system was bloody ridiculous. So many stupid fixtures result.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

The McIntyre Final 8 system was specifically designed to ensure all GF combinations were possible at the finals start of the finals series, i.e. 1v8 can be the GF, even though they play in week 1 of thew finals, similar isn't possible under the current system. For me that's a huge advantage in an even competition with an extremely unbalanced schedule, H&A with less than 1 in 3 teams.

For me, the difference between 4th and 5th, possibly only split by %, paths to the GF, and, therefore, likelihood of winning, is the most significant issue.

What happens after week 1 though?

Any difficulties with the McIntyre system surely only arise when 1st/2nd are beaten by 7th/8th. Is what 1st/2nd lose for losing to 7th/8th really too much?

With only 4 teams playing for the next two week up so there aren't actually many options, especially if you want to keep first week match up GF's possible.
Should 1st/2nd retain home ground advantage? Or, the right to choose their opponent, but no repeat of week 1?

I don't think anyone's won the flag who hasn't earnt it in this system.

In that the winning team has done what the system requires, has there ever been a team under any system that hasn't earnt it. But, that could be different to the most deserving, or best team of the season.

Up until 1930 the most VFL had a challenge Grand Final, where the finals series winner could be challenged by the Minor
Premiers, in some years any team with a better H&A record could challenge. In those seasons a challenge GF was played 22 times with the Minor Premier winning 12 times. The exact finals series format does impact on who the final winner is because it dictates who plays who were and when.

 

[HTT]

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

The McIntyre Final 8 system was specifically designed to ensure all GF combinations were possible at the finals start of the finals series, i.e. 1v8 can be the GF, even though they play in week 1 of thew finals, similar isn't possible under the current system. For me that's a huge advantage in an even competition with an extremely unbalanced schedule, H&A with less than 1 in 3 teams.

For me, the difference between 4th and 5th, possibly only split by %, paths to the GF, and, therefore, likelihood of winning, is the most significant issue.



Any difficulties with the McIntyre system surely only arise when 1st/2nd are beaten by 7th/8th. Is what 1st/2nd lose for losing to 7th/8th really too much?

With only 4 teams playing for the next two week up so there aren't actually many options, especially if you want to keep first week match up GF's possible.
Should 1st/2nd retain home ground advantage? Or, the right to choose their opponent, but no repeat of week 1?



In that the winning team has done what the system requires, has there ever been a team under any system that hasn't earnt it. But, that could be different to the most deserving, or best team of the season.

Up until 1930 the most VFL had a challenge Grand Final, where the finals series winner could be challenged by the Minor
Premiers, in some years any team with a better H&A record could challenge. In those seasons a challenge GF was played 22 times with the Minor Premier winning 12 times. The exact finals series format does impact on who the final winner is because it dictates who plays who were and when.

Adelaide winning the flag in 98 despite finishing 5th AND losing their first final isn’t a great advertisement.

If 1st and 2nd both win (as expected), the 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 become dead rubbers, only deciding match ups in week 2. Hence, 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 must be played last, but if those teams lose, that means they’ll cop a shorter break than their opponent into week 2.
Also, lower ranked winners in week 1 get HGA over higher ranked losers in week 2. If 1st loses in week 1, they may have to travel to play a significantly lower ranked team in week 2.
The McIntyre final 8 is just ridiculous. Even the NRL ditched it eventually.

 

[Dazzler9]

Adelaide winning the flag in 98 despite finishing 5th AND losing their first final isn’t a great advertisement.

If 1st and 2nd both win (as expected), the 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 become dead rubbers, only deciding match ups in week 2. Hence, 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 must be played last, but if those teams lose, that means they’ll cop a shorter break than their opponent into week 2.
Also, lower ranked winners in week 1 get HGA over higher ranked losers in week 2. If 1st loses in week 1, they may have to travel to play a significantly lower ranked team in week 2.
The McIntyre final 8 is just ridiculous. Even the NRL ditched it eventually.

Yep, that system was pure turd. Anyone with half a brain (including the AFL who eventually ditched it) could see that.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

In the book 'One Season' about a fictional Aussie Rules team (The Tassie Devils) playing in the National Aussie Rules Competition (NARC - pretty funny if you ask me) the author has a top 10 - albeit it is a 20 team competition - and the finals systems runs like this:

Week one (elimination finals):

7 vs 10 (EF1)
8 vs 9 (EF2)

(two losers eliminated)

Week two (semi-finals):

1st vs winner of EF1 (SF1)
2nd vs winner of EF2 (SF2)
3rd vs 6th (SF3)
4th vs 5th (SF4)

(four losers eliminated)

Week three (Preliminary finals):

Winner of SF1 vs Winner of SF4 (PF1)
Winner of SF2 vs Winner of SF3 (PF2)

(winners progress to the grand final and two losers eliminated)

Grand final:

Winner of PF1 vs Winner of PF2

That way the first six teams get rewarded with a week off but there is no break for teams once the finals start in week two and every final is elimination. I think that would make it more exciting but some may say unfair on the top four teams but so be it.

I suppose you could add an extra week to this system where the two winners of the semi-final get a week off but that means playing three games in five weeks like now, which I think is too much of a break.

 

[dave123]

There is one fault only

Finishing fourth is better than third .....you might ask why?

Ok so hawks get to play Richmond who finished 1sy if they lose ...they can still make the grand final and not face Richmond again till the big day ...

If you finish 3rd you get the first team in the prelim ...if you lose week one to the 2nd team ...you get harder path to the grand final by finishing higher

I’d rather get the best team first up by finishing fourth than play the best team in a prelim



Some of you may not get all that but I’ve long thought finishing fourth is better than third

 

[Royal Flush]

8 is good for an 18 team comp.
Anymore and it's a farce.
The only reason a top 10 is being floated is for financial benefits.

If you had a top 10, you could just call it a champions league, everyone plays each other and the winner is the the team who finishes top.


Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[theyellowsash]

Highest ranked team should always play the lowest ranked team that gets through to the next week.

Week 1 elimination finals
5v8
6v7

Week 2 semi finals
3v6
4v5

Week 3 preliminary finals
1v4
2v3

Week 4 Grand Final
1v2

Agreed. It's better to finish 2nd than 1st.

 

[kranger]

The existing final 8 system is pretty good. Each week is structured to theoretically have tighter contests, such as in week 1 there is 1v4 and 5v8 compared to a system where 1v8. The top four are also rewarded with a double chance and an opportunity for a home preliminary final.

But with 18 teams now, and potentially 19 with Tasmania, more teams should be in finals, so more teams have games that matter later in the season.

So here is a 12 team final system, that uses the existing week 1-4 top 8 finals. But replaces the pre-finals bye with a week 0 of finals.

In the new week 0, teams 5-12 play an elimination, with 5-8 getting a home game. And the top 4 play off to decide who gets the home qualifying final in week 1.



This means 6 extra games of finals. More meaningful games in the H&A season. The season stays the same length.

 

[juss]

The existing final 8 system is pretty good. Each week is structured to theoretically have tighter contests, such as in week 1 there is 1v4 and 5v8 compared to a system where 1v8. The top four are also rewarded with a double chance and an opportunity for a home preliminary final.

But with 18 teams now, and potentially 19 with Tasmania, more teams should be in finals, so more teams have games that matter later in the season.

So here is a 12 team final system, that uses the existing week 1-4 top 8 finals. But replaces the pre-finals bye with a week 0 of finals.

In the new week 0, teams 5-12 play an elimination, with 5-8 getting a home game. And the top 4 play off to decide who gets the home qualifying final in week 1.

View attachment 1422112

This means 6 extra games of finals. More meaningful games in the H&A season. The season stays the same length.

12/18 teams is too many imo. Waste of time dragging out a 22 game season when 2/3 teams make finals, especially when everyone knows half of those teams are no chance for the flag.

 

[pz5151]

but then all of a sudden Richmond would make the finals alot

This aged well haha

 

[Arr0w]

Let's just keep it simple

19 teams, keep the the current final 8 system, 20 teams, top 10 play finals

20 teams/top 10 finals
Round 1 of finals, top 2 teams get a week off. Sides 3 - 10, play under the current finals system

Qualifying Finals

3 v 6
4 v 5

Elimination finals

7 v 10
8 v 9

Then restart the top 8 finals system

 

[pz5151]

Let's just keep it simple

19 teams, keep the the current final 8 system, 20 teams, top 10 play finals

20 teams/top 10 finals
Round 1 of finals, top 2 teams get a week off. Sides 3 - 10, play under the current finals system

Qualifying Finals

3 v 6
4 v 5

Elimination finals

7 v 10
8 v 9

Then restart the top 8 finals system

I get that you're trying to give the top 2 an extra advantage here but we've seen pretty consistently that more than 1 week break in a short period seems to be a disadvantage. We won a flag off the double break in 1990 and the Dogs seemed to benefit in 2016 from the top 4 teams having a pre finals bye then the winners from week 1 having a second week off.

8 teams in finals from 20 teams seems plenty to me and the current finals system is excellent. It provides a chance for the 5th to 8th teams while also rewarding the top 4. No need tk change anything except remove the pre finals bye.

 

[eastfreo75]

The play in finals has worked in the NBA.

Less teams tanking and more meaningful games at the trail end of the season.

NFL has a wildcard final as well.

8 v 9 for a play in game. We already have a bye before the finals anyway.

 

[Arr0w]

I get that you're trying to give the top 2 an extra advantage here but we've seen pretty consistently that more than 1 week break in a short period seems to be a disadvantage. We won a flag off the double break in 1990 and the Dogs seemed to benefit in 2016 from the top 4 teams having a pre finals bye then the winners from week 1 having a second week off.

8 teams in finals from 20 teams seems plenty to me and the current finals system is excellent. It provides a chance for the 5th to 8th teams while also rewarding the top 4. No need tk change anything except remove the pre finals bye.

If we are concerned with the top 2 teams getting an extra break, they can adjust what I proposed slightly

Elimination Finals

7 v 10
8 v 9

Qualifying Finals

1 v 6
2 v 5
3 v 4

Then restart the finals 8 system, with the adjusted ladder from week 1 of finals

 

[eastfreo75]

If we are concerned with the top 2 teams getting an extra break, they can adjust what I proposed slightly

Elimination Finals

7 v 10
8 v 9

Qualifying Finals

1 v 6
2 v 5
3 v 4

Then restart the finals 8 system, with the adjusted ladder from week 1 of finals

Adds more drama as the combinations of who plays who would increase.

 

[Mr north man]

Let's just keep it simple

19 teams, keep the the current final 8 system, 20 teams, top 10 play finals

20 teams/top 10 finals
Round 1 of finals, top 2 teams get a week off. Sides 3 - 10, play under the current finals system

Qualifying Finals

3 v 6
4 v 5

Elimination finals

7 v 10
8 v 9

Then restart the top 8 finals system

Only change would be Elimination Finals play 7 vs 10 then 8 vs 9 after Round 22 while teams 1 thru to 6 have a week off then start Finals a week later.

 

[Arr0w]

Only change would be Elimination Finals play 7 vs 10 then 8 vs 9 after Round 22 while teams 1 thru to 6 have a week off then start Finals a week later.

Another viable option, in fact, it would give the AFL another week of finals

 

[deck]

The play in finals has worked in the NBA.

Less teams tanking and more meaningful games at the trail end of the season.

NFL has a wildcard final as well.

8 v 9 for a play in game. We already have a bye before the finals anyway.

You clearly don't understand what the NFL wildcard is.

 

[eastfreo75]

You clearly don't understand what the NFL wildcard is.

You are right I don’t.

My point is the wildcard final adds to the NFL finals drama.

8 v 9 or 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 would add extra drama to the end of the season.