The double chance - a curse on finals systems since 1902

[McCrann]

No it isn't. 5th to 8th are a total waste of time.

The double chance isn't the problem IMHO - it's the week off. Statistically it's just super unlikely that anyone will win 4 straight finals where at least two teams get a week off and only have to play 3 finals.

It's not supposed to be easy. If you can't make the Top 4, you have to do it the hard way.

Normally to win it, a team in the Top 4 has to beat - during the finals, the other 3 Top 4 teams.

What could be better than that of proving who the best team is?

The romanticism of 5-8 battling to have a chance is there. You'll get rising teams, and fallen champions having one last shot in those spots. Why would you have a problem with that?

It's not like we can put teams in 5th-8th into some Continental competition - which is what occurs in Europe. You would make it a Final 4 again and destroy crowds in the second half of the year?

Idiotic idea.

 

[McCrann]

When 8th beats 1st the race for 8th the next season will suddenly be a hell of a lot more interesting.

At the moment 7th and 8th are basically a battle to see who can be ritually slaughtered in rounds 1 or 2 of the finals.

That is crap mate. 8th has beaten 5th as many times as 5th has beaten 8th. Check the stats.

 

[McCrann]

Almost every VFL/AFL finals system has included a double chance for one or more of the higher ranked teams. After a knockout final-four system in 1901, it was decided in 1902 that the minor premier should have a second chance if they lost the Grand Final (which meant their opponent had to beat them twice!).

From there as the finals systems have evolved and expanded to include more teams, the double chance has remained in some form - it is an accepted part of the system. Interestingly, the vast majority of major sporting leagues outside of Australia do not give any team a double chance - higher placed teams are sufficiently rewarded with home finals, byes, and weaker opponents. Why no double chance? Because the double chance is a curse on the finals.

The main problem with any system that gives teams a double chance is that it allows for two sides to play each other twice in the finals. There are two reasons this is undesirable:

• the build-up and excitement leading up to a match is greatest when uncertainty about the result is high. When two teams have recently played this uncertainty is greatly reduced (especially if the first game was one-sided).
• one team may have to defeat the same opponent twice to win the premiership (why should they have to prove they can beat them a second time?)

The AFL clearly recognise that this is an issue. However, instead of moving to a knockout system, they have instead compromised the integrity of the finals to minimise the chance of the same two teams playing twice. Consider the preliminary finals - to avoid a repeat of the qualifying finals, the opponents are switched. Typically, the highest seed plays the third seed, and the second seed plays the fourth seed.

Why should the second seed get the easier game? We complain about the inequities in the fixture time and again, but this major inequity somehow seems to slip through the cracks.

The problem is the double chance. Finals are about performing on the day - all or nothing, no second chances. It is time for the AFL to move to a knockout system.

My proposal:

Top 6: automatically qualify for finals, receive a week off
7-10: play two wildcard matches to determine final two spots

Then proceed to a seeded knockout final 8 system over three weeks.

Just no.

Check out the Grand Final match-ups over the last decade.

Can you work out why we've had so many cracking Grand Finals. Think about it.

The current Finals system works well, and is definitely the best one since the Final 5.

 

[McCrann]

IMHO the current system is not fine because the week off is just too massive an advantage. In the current era even one extra day is a big advantage, or one extra fit player on the bench. A whole extra week off is plainly ridiculous.

How about this suggestion then:

Keep the current system, but instead of the week off, the winners of the first two qualifying finals have to play the losers of what are currently the 'elimination' finals. Gets rid of the ridiculous advantage of the week off, and adds a couple of extra finals in the same number of weeks for good measure.

E.g.

Round 1:

Swans v Freo in Sydney
Cats v Hawks in Melbourne
Port v Crows in Adelaide -> no longer knock out but loser has very tough round 2
North v Bombers in Melbourne

Round 2:

Swans v Crows in Sydney -> i.e., Sydney very likely to win but still a knock out final
Cats v Bombers in Melbourne
Hawks v North in Melbourne -> i.e. same as current system
Freo v Port in Perth

Round 3:

Swans v Hawks in Sydney -> same as current system but no week off
Cats v Freo in Melbourne

Round 4:

Swans v Cats in Melbourne

So you would let a team finish 8th and lose first week, and then a 2nd week win would have that team in a Preliminary Final!!!!

Madness. Madness.

 

[McCrann]

So then why have them in at all?

Either give them a serious chance of winning, or don't have them in.

How many Wild Cards have ever won an NFL title?

Why do they let teams finishing 3rd or 4th into the so-called CHAMPIONS LEAGUE!!!!!!

Why are there 16. That's right - 16 - teams in the NBA Finals???

Has an 8th seed ever won an NBA Title? Or a 7th seed?

Can you answer any of these strange questions.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Just no.

Check out the Grand Final match-ups over the last decade.

Can you work out why we've had so many cracking Grand Finals. Think about it.

The current Finals system works well, and is definitely the best one since the Final 5.

The five was crap. Top side gets a week off, plays a game, then gets another week off straight into the GF and plays the same bloody team again!

 

[McCrann]

Should be a top 6

Top 2 get a week off

3v6
4v5

1st plays lowest places winner
2nd plays other winner

Gives top best advantage

Current format you're actually better off finishing 2nd as you're most likely to play a lower ranked team in week 3

Except as pointed out, in the last 4 years 2nd has lost to 3rd 3 out of 4 times.

How is it better to finish 2nd and play a better team in your Qualifying Final and likely lose? Explain again to me how that is "better"????

 

[McCrann]

View attachment 74895
Here is my system and I don't think there's any flaws in it. Here's why:
1. Keeps the normal 4 week finals system.
2. Rewards teams 1-4 with home finals
3. Doesn't give teams double chances
4. Higher the position means an easier opponent
5. Allows for bigger chances of upsets and 5-8 making prelims
6. The week 1 winners get a week off going into the prelims, if it's 1st and 2nd it make sense however if 8th or 7th wins it rewards them for beating a tougher opponent.
7. Teams 3-6 get a week off in week 1 but have to play a fresh winner from week 1
8. All teams get a bye

Um, you're missing 2 finals - do you know how many millions of dollars that is of revenue you've destroyed right there?

 

[McCrann]

You are referring to the old McIntrye Final 8 system that the AFL and NRL used to use where the 6th placed team could get a second chance yet the 1st placed team could be knocked out after one loss. The current final 8 system both comps use is better as that can't happen. But you can still finish 4th and get a second chance yet the 1st placed team can be knocked out after one loss. Bottom line = double chance finals systems are flawed and must be disposed of.

Wrong 1st and 2nd had double chances under that system.

 

[McCrann]

The five was crap. Top side gets a week off, plays a game, then gets another week off straight into the GF and plays the same bloody team again!

Well, Final 5 certainly didn't do your team any favours.

Then again, your 2010-11 team was your best team for 75 years - which may explain why the Pies didn't win a Flag under the Final 5 rather than the system in place.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Well, Final 5 certainly didn't do your team any favours.

Then again, your 2010-11 team was your best team for 75 years - which may explain why the Pies didn't win a Flag under the Final 5 rather than the system in place.

My point has got nothing to do with Collingwood and certainly nothing to do with 2010-11. The final five gave WAY too much advantage to the top side. Two weeks off twice? Often playing only one single opponent throught September? Come off it.

 

[McCrann]

My point has got nothing to do with Collingwood and certainly nothing to do with 2010-11. The final five gave WAY too much advantage to the top side.

Fair enough, but honest question, how many times did the Pies finish on top during the Final 5 era?

1990 clearly, any others?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Fair enough, but honest question, how many times did the Pies finish on top during the Final 5 era?

1990 clearly, any others?

1977 from memory where we tied in the GF and lost the replay was the only time. Two week suspension to Phil Carman (two GF's) was the difference.

Essendon finished top in 1990 but effectively had three weeks off, resting half their side in round 22 then a week off then another week off after Pies and Eagles drew and played again. Essendons advantage turned into a disadvantage, some players hadnt played for a month then met a rampaging Collingwood in the semis. Rules changed after that and they brought in extra time in finals

 

[swiftdog]

Stopped reading after this... How can you say a 7 game series is the same as a a 1 game series. BOTH cases there are double chances, in a 7 game series you have 4 chances... Not sure how you can say the majority of team sports don't have double chances. If you really think that an nba 7 series is the equivalent to a 1 game final then you are saying that if an nba, nhl, mlb team could met the same team (possibly resulting in 14 matches) THEN ONLY THAT is the equivalent of the afl's double chance.

I never said that a 7 game series is the same as a 1 game series... I said an NBA/MLB/NHL/whatever equivalent would be IF, key word - IF, a team lost their 7 game series (i.e. their opposition won 4 out of 7 games) yet was still alive in the finals/playoffs. As teams in the NBA, NHL and MLB are all eliminated when they lose a 7 game series the IF implies that a 7 game and 1 game series, a la the NBA/NHL/MLB and AFL/NRL playoffs/finals, are different.

As I said in my post that you didn't bother to read. The theories behind a best of 7 series and a knockout style/best of 1 series are completely different. Comparing the 'double chance' in the NBA/NHL/MLB model (and I use 'double chance' very loosely here) to the AFL model is like comparing apples and oranges.

First gets an easier run in the current set-up. Yours makes it too easy. May as well abolish finals and award the premiership to the team on top of the ladder.

"First gets an easier run in the current set-up"
Let's compare first and second in the current set-up (if everything goes to plan):
1st - non-elimination game against 4th, then elimination game against 3rd
2nd - non-elimination game against 3rd, then elimination game against 4th

How can you say that first gets an easier run in the current set-up?

Even if they both lose in week 1:
1st - elimination game against 5th, elimination game against 3rd
2nd - elimination game against 6th, elimination game against 4th

Same question.


"Yours makes it too easy"
Purely your opinion. No matter where a team finished on the ladder, they deserve an advantage over teams that finish below them provided they've made finals. The OP's system provides this in a completely transparent manner. The current system doesn't.

"May as well abolish finals and award the premiership to the team on top of the ladder:
Kind of like how the number 1 seed ALWAYS makes it to a grand slam final?
Of the last 10 teams to compete in the superbowl, only 5 of them were conference champions. Hardly a walk in the park for the number 1 seed is it?

Sydney was allowed to lose and they would have missed out on the week off if they did. But they won. They beat Port. The top side. Having beaten the top team they took their side of the finals draw.

At the end of week 3 both Sydney and Brisbane had lost one game. I understand the reasoning behind the current system but I don't agree with it for the reasons mentioned and when alternate, viable and fairer finals systems are available.

 

[caitsith01]

It's not like we can put teams in 5th-8th into some Continental competition - which is what occurs in Europe. You would make it a Final 4 again and destroy crowds in the second half of the year?

Idiotic idea.

No, I wouldn't do that. If you had basic reading skills you would see that I argue for making it slightly tougher for the top 4 than it is currently, not getting rid of 5th to 8th.

So the idiotic idea is one you just came up with yourself. Well done.

 

[caitsith01]

That is crap mate. 8th has beaten 5th as many times as 5th has beaten 8th. Check the stats.

Hence the words "or 2".

 

[caitsith01]

So you would let a team finish 8th and lose first week, and then a 2nd week win would have that team in a Preliminary Final!!!!

Madness. Madness.

Well, lucky for you I don't get to decide. This thread's just people kicking around hypotheticals. I was just giving an example of a system where every team still in the finals has to play every week.

Out of interest - you think that a team playing at home for the second week running that can't beat the team that finishes 8th playing away for the second week running coming off a loss deserves to be premiers? Madness. Madness.

 

[caitsith01]

How many Wild Cards have ever won an NFL title?

Why do they let teams finishing 3rd or 4th into the so-called CHAMPIONS LEAGUE!!!!!!

Why are there 16. That's right - 16 - teams in the NBA Finals???

Has an 8th seed ever won an NBA Title? Or a 7th seed?

Can you answer any of these strange questions.

Nope. And I'm not the one suggesting there should be 'wild cards' or anything like that. My only point is that the winners of the qualifying finals should not get a week off because it is too big an advantage. And more generally, that if you are going to have 8 teams play finals, all 8 should have a real chance at success (not just a theoretical chance).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

At the end of week 3 both Sydney and Brisbane had lost one game. I understand the reasoning behind the current system but I don't agree with it for the reasons mentioned and when alternate, viable and fairer finals systems are available.

Yes but Brisbane had to win two games to get there, Sydney only one.

And the minor premier Port had lost two. And were out. Top four get a double chance in week one and I'm all for it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I never said that a 7 game series is the same as a 1 game series... I said an NBA/MLB/NHL/whatever equivalent would be IF, key word - IF, a team lost their 7 game series (i.e. their opposition won 4 out of 7 games) yet was still alive in the finals/playoffs. As teams in the NBA, NHL and MLB are all eliminated when they lose a 7 game series the IF implies that a 7 game and 1 game series, a la the NBA/NHL/MLB and AFL/NRL playoffs/finals, are different.

As I said in my post that you didn't bother to read. The theories behind a best of 7 series and a knockout style/best of 1 series are completely different. Comparing the 'double chance' in the NBA/NHL/MLB model (and I use 'double chance' very loosely here) to the AFL model is like comparing apples and oranges.




"First gets an easier run in the current set-up"
Let's compare first and second in the current set-up (if everything goes to plan):
1st - non-elimination game against 4th, then elimination game against 3rd
2nd - non-elimination game against 3rd, then elimination game against 4th

How can you say that first gets an easier run in the current set-up?.

Because the week off is incredibly valuable. The easier route to the PF is the most advantageoous. Team 1 has to beat (in order if all goes to rankings) teams 4 3 and 2 in order, progressively harder as it goes. Agree theres not a massive difference between 1st and second (not there should be in an 18 team comp, its just as hard to finish second as first), but theres definitely some.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

How many Wild Cards have ever won an NFL title?

Why do they let teams finishing 3rd or 4th into the so-called CHAMPIONS LEAGUE!!!!!!

Why are there 16. That's right - 16 - teams in the NBA Finals???

Has an 8th seed ever won an NBA Title? Or a 7th seed?

Can you answer any of these strange questions.

wild cards win the superbowl all the time. giants in 07' and packers in 10'.

8th seed has beaten top seed a few times in nba. spurs lost to memphis few years back and philadelphia beat chicago. (but it's march harder in nba because when you play a best of 7 series, more often than not the better team comes out on top)

team finishing 3rd nearly won champs league last year.

these are underdog stories we just don't see in AFL.

 

[McCrann]

1977 from memory where we tied in the GF and lost the replay was the only time. Two week suspension to Phil Carman (two GF's) was the difference.

Essendon finished top in 1990 but effectively had three weeks off, resting half their side in round 22 then a week off then another week off after Pies and Eagles drew and played again. Essendons advantage turned into a disadvantage, some players hadnt played for a month then met a rampaging Collingwood in the semis. Rules changed after that and they brought in extra time in finals

Ah yes, too true, I do remember that, Essendon were screwed over.

1977, yep, quite a defeat that one. You got your revenge for that 33 years later though over my boys.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Ah yes, too true, I do remember that, Essendon were screwed over.

1977, yep, quite a defeat that one. You got your revenge for that 33 years later though over my boys.

Screwed themselves over for talking the pi55 in round 22 by playing seventeen Danihers in the one game. I'm not going to begrudge them a bit of bad luck, at the end of the day an extra week off is hardly a death sentence.

Its not like a dodgy boundary umpire decision or anything!!!

 

[pjcrows]

A curse on the finals system is even having 7th and 8th involved. Should be Top 6.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

A curse on the finals system is even having 7th and 8th involved. Should be Top 6.

Top six would be a curse on home and away system after the end of June. All the interesting "eight point games" we are watching between teams placed 6th through to 12th would be just a bunch of dead rubbers. And bottom teams would start tanking in mid May